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).
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
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