23 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-fs[PATCH] IFS: Inode FileSystem| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Suleiman Souhlal | Jun 5, 2005 11:03 am | |
| Suleiman Souhlal | Jun 5, 2005 8:07 pm | |
| Maxim Sobolev | Jun 6, 2005 3:31 am | |
| Suleiman Souhlal | Jun 6, 2005 4:03 am | |
| Garance A Drosihn | Jun 6, 2005 4:17 am | |
| Scott Long | Jun 6, 2005 4:54 am | |
| Suleiman Souhlal | Jun 6, 2005 5:06 am | |
| Garance A Drosihn | Jun 6, 2005 5:47 am | |
| Suleiman Souhlal | Jun 6, 2005 6:27 am | |
| Jim Rees | Jun 6, 2005 10:50 am | |
| Bruce M Simpson | Jun 6, 2005 12:14 pm | |
| Scott Long | Jun 6, 2005 1:47 pm | |
| Dag-Erling Smørgrav | Jun 6, 2005 2:46 pm | |
| Scott Long | Jun 6, 2005 2:56 pm | |
| Dag-Erling Smørgrav | Jun 6, 2005 3:24 pm | |
| Scott Long | Jun 6, 2005 3:50 pm | |
| Dag-Erling Smørgrav | Jun 6, 2005 4:03 pm | |
| Scott Long | Jun 6, 2005 4:12 pm | |
| Brooks Davis | Jun 6, 2005 4:40 pm | |
| Garance A Drosihn | Jun 6, 2005 6:11 pm | |
| Don Lewis | Jun 6, 2005 8:37 pm | |
| Garance A Drosihn | Jun 6, 2005 9:04 pm | |
| Robert Watson | Jun 6, 2005 11:35 pm |
| Subject: | [PATCH] IFS: Inode FileSystem | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Scott Long (sco...@samsco.org) | |
| Date: | Jun 6, 2005 2:56:57 pm | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-fs | |
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
Scott Long <sco...@samsco.org> writes:
We can't go making incremental incompatibilities to the filesystem without a good deal of planning. This is the type of thing that would go into a 'UFS3'.
This is primarily an API issue, not a filesystem layout issue. We already have at least one filesystem with 64-bit inodes (msdosfs).
DES
What do you mean it's not a layout issue? We can't make incompatible layout changes whever we feel like it, or else transportability of filesystems is completely lost and everyone who wants to boot more than just the Last And Greatest on their system winds up with unnessary pain.
Anyways, I'm not looking for someone to get a wild idea that we need UFS3 right now. There are a bunch of features that would be ideal for UFS3 at a later date when we've had time to sit down and think about how to do it right. Going off and adjusting di_nlink to 32 bits and dot_ino to 64 bits and declaring that to be 'UFS3' is not a good strategy.
Scott