Re: [PATCH 00/61] vfs: change inode->i_ino from unsigned long to u64

[Jeff Layton]

On Thu, 2026-02-26 at 16:49 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 10:55:02AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > The bulk of the changes are to format strings and tracepoints, since the
> > kernel itself doesn't care that much about the i_ino field. The first
> > patch changes some vfs function arguments, so check that one out
> > carefully.
> 
> Why are the format strings all done as separate patches?  Don't we get
> bisection hazards by splitting it apart this way?

Circling back to this...

I have a v2 series (~107 patches) that I'm testing now that does this
more bisectably with the typedef and macro scaffolding that Mathieu
suggested. I'll probably send it early next week.

I had done it this way originally since I figured it was best to break
this up by subsystem. Should I continue with this series as a set of
patches broken up this way, or is it preferable to combine the pile of
format changes into fewer patches?
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>