Re: [PATCH 00/61] vfs: change inode->i_ino from unsigned long to u64
From: Mathieu Desnoyers
Date: Fri Feb 27 2026 - 14:04:55 EST
On 2026-02-27 12:19, Jeff Layton wrote:
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?
Here is the approach I would recommend to maximize signal over noise
for the follow up email thread discussions:
Now that your series is bisectable, you could post a [RFC PATCH v2]
series with the following:
- Patch 00 introduces the series, points to your git branch implementing
the whole series,
- The first few patches introduce the new type (kino_t) and macro to
do the format string transition. Initially kino_t would typedef to
unsigned long (no changes).
- Followed by patches implementing the type + format string changes for
a few key subsystems.
- The final patch would change kino_t and the format string macro to
64-bit integers.
Once everyone agree on those core changes, you could proceed to post
patches that change additional subsystems in a subsequent round.
One more comment: have you tried using Coccinelle to do this kind of
semantic code change ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com