No one has replied. Any opinions ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 3:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [RFC] InodeEtag option
>
> From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 3:01 PM
>
>
> > "Dietz, Phil E." wrote:
> > >
> > > - the allow_options_t size increased to a long because all 8 bits
> > > of char were in use.
> >
> > Ouch. I think that has killed changes to Options in the past.
>
> So do we
>
> 1. bite the bullet and increment the mmn?
>
> 2. add more_options as a long at the end of the structure, increment
> the mmn, and perhaps some authors get away with ignoring the bump?
>
> Bill
