On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 03:39:14PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > IIRC, at some point such an attempt has seriously hurt iget() on 32bit > > boxen, so we ended up deciding not to go there. Had been years ago, > > though... > > Yeah, I think the circumstances have changed. 32-bit is less > important, and iget() is much less critical than it used to be (all > *normal* inode lookups are through the direct dentry pointer). > > Sure, ARM is a few years away from 64-bit being common, but it's > happening. And I suspect even 32-bit ARM doesn't have the annoying > issues that x86-32 had with 64-bit values (namely using up a lot of > the register space). > > So unless there's something hidden that makes it really nasty, I do > suspect that a "u64 i_ino" would just be the right thing to do. Rather > than adding workarounds for our current odd situation on 32-bit > kernels (and just wasting time on 64-bit kernels). I'm all for it, though I'm worried about: $ git grep '\bi_ino\b'|wc -l 1746 so would prefer a more modest (and possibly stable-appropriate) fix for 3.13 while we sort out what i_ino's being used for. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
