Subject: Re: Large inodes for ffs
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/24/1999 08:51:02
Bill Studenmund wrote:
> [[ Description of large inodes for ffs deleted ]]
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.
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