On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:03 PM Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks Carlo for the file and "stat" output. The problem is APFS has
> 64-bit inode (according to the Internet) while we store inodes as
> 32-bit, so it's truncated.
> ...
> We will have to deal with the same
> truncated inode elsewhere to make sure we index refresh performance
> does not degrade on APFS.
... and we don't have a problem there. Either Linus predicted dealing
with 64-bit inodes, or he had a habit of casting st_ino to unsigned
int, I cannot tell. This code
ce->st_ino != (unsigned int)st->st_ino
is from e83c516331 (Initial revision of "git", the information manager
from hell - 2005-04-07) and it's still used today for comparing sd_ino
with st->st_ino in read-cache.c. I guess I should have copied and
pasted more often.
--
Duy
