Re: [prepatch] address_space-based writeback

From: Denis Vlasenko (
Date: Sat May 04 2002 - 19:46:27 EST

On 3 May 2002 19:50, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > Changing unix is doable _if_ you can show a significant benefit.
> > > The more utilities you want to break, the more benefit you need to
> > > show. I don't think you can send the inode to the land of
> > > "8-char limited passwords" by pushing "simpler management of fstabs"
> > > though.
> >
> >I'm afraid I can't present benefits big enough.
> >
> >I was thinking of fs driver (NFS,reiser,NTFS,FAT,...) developers'
> >pain, not about my /etc/fstab editing.
> NTFS has native inode numbers which are persistent across reboot so this is
> a non-issue. The only thing is that inode numbers on ntfs are 64 bit and
> not 32 bit but that is much a user space issue as a kernel issue...

Sure it is fixable, we can slowly drift to 64bit inodes in libc.

OTOH, why I have this subtle feeling that there is (or will be)
SuperHyperDuperFS with 128bit inodes?

That is one reason why I don't like inode numbers.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 22:00:23 EST