On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 12:16:43AM +0000, Chris Down wrote: > Dave Chinner writes: > > It took 15 years for us to be able to essentially deprecate > > inode32 (inode64 is the default behaviour), and we were very happy > > to get that albatross off our necks. In reality, almost everything > > out there in the world handles 64 bit inodes correctly > > including 32 bit machines and 32bit binaries on 64 bit machines. > > And, IMNSHO, there no excuse these days for 32 bit binaries that > > don't using the *64() syscall variants directly and hence support > > 64 bit inodes correctlyi out of the box on all platforms. > > > > I don't think we should be repeating past mistakes by trying to > > cater for broken 32 bit applications on 64 bit machines in this day > > and age. > > I'm very glad to hear that. I strongly support moving to 64-bit inums in all > cases if there is precedent that it's not a compatibility issue, but from > the comments on my original[0] patch (especially that they strayed from the > original patches' change to use ino_t directly into slab reuse), I'd been > given the impression that it was known to be one. > > From my perspective I have no evidence that inode32 is needed other than the > comment from Jeff above get_next_ino. If that turns out not to be a problem, > I am more than happy to just wholesale migrate 64-bit inodes per-sb in > tmpfs. Well, that's my comment above about 32 bit apps using non-LFS compliant interfaces in this day and age. It's essentially a legacy interface these days, and anyone trying to access a modern linux filesystem (btrfs, XFS, ext4, etc) ion 64 bit systems need to handle 64 bit inodes because they all can create >32bit inode numbers in their default configurations. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
