From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mosberger Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:26:25 +0000 Subject: Re: IA64 ino_t incorrectly sized? Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>>> On 17 Sep 2003 10:33:47 -0400, Jes Sorensen said: >>>>> "Nathan" = Nathan Scott writes: Nathan> Does anyone know why the IA64 platform-specific ino_t Nathan> definition is an int and not a long? Patch below fixes this Nathan> problem for me but I wonder if there will be side-effects I Nathan> haven't considered (i.e. was there a reason for making this Nathan> 32 bits originally?). If not, could the IA64 maintainers Nathan> push this patch around to the official kernel trees for me? Nathan> (pretty please) Jes> Hi Nathan, Jes> I am actually surprised it's still a 32 bit int in the Jes> kernel. I deliberately used 64 bit types in glibc so it could Jes> be done right. Must have slipped on fixing the kernel for this Jes> one. Jes> David? Extending ino_t to 64 bits came up last October [1]. AFAIK, nobody bothered to investigate & send a patch, so things didn't change since then. --david [1] http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/linux-ia64/0210/3952.html