Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There is a upcoming potential problem where even the 64-bit field I placed > > in statx() may be insufficient. The Auristor AFS server, for example, has > > a 96-bit vnode ID, but I can't properly represent this in stx_ino. > > Currently, I > > Is that vnode ID akin to a volume? Because if so you could just > piggy-back on a subvolume id field in statx() and expose it there. No. The volume ID is the ID of the volume. The vnode is the equivalent of an inode. > > just truncate the value to fit and hope that the discarded part will be all > > zero, but that's not really a good thing to do - especially when stx_ino is > > used programmatically to check for hardlinks. > > > > Would it be better to add an 'stx_ino_2' field and corresponding flag? > > Would this be meaningfully different from using a file handle? There's also the matter of presenting the "inode number" to the user - "ls -i" for example. David
