Subject: Re: Large inodes for ffs
To: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/23/1999 14:03:05
On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Simon Burge wrote:
> Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > [[ Description of large inodes for ffs deleted ]]
> > Thoughts?
> Is this intended to replace the 128 byte inode or be a choice at newfs
> time? I can think of some situations where the doubling the inode
> overhead might not be desired - news (and possibly mail) spools, as well
> as my cddb database partition.
Choice at newfs time. In fact you have to request large inodes. :-) (newfs
> Don't get me wrong though, what you've done sounds great!
> One other thing:
> > a flags byte to
> > indicate what optional data is present ... One of the
> > bits in the flag byte indicates the presence of application-specific data.
> > The other bits will indicate the presence of ACL's, etc., when defined.
> Is a byte enough? Maybe a u_int32_t might give more room for
It actually is a u_int32_t. A byte would give struct alignment