Subject: Re: swapfs filesystem design (and mount/umount question)
To: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
From: Eduardo E. Horvath <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/19/2000 16:44:45
> Here's some rough notes on how I think a swapfs filesystem should be
> implemented from a layout POV.
> A- The filesystem size will be limited to 2^32 512 bytes "blocks", as
> this is how big the size parameter is (on 32 bit machines anyway),
> and I've kept the size parameter in terms of 512 bytes blocks since
> that matches what mfs uses. Page offsets internally are u_int32_t's
> so there's an absolute maximum filesystem size of 2^32 * PAGE_SIZE.
> I don't see the maximum filesystem size as a real limitation...
Wouldn't paddr_t or psize_t be more appropriate than u_int32_t's?
Eduardo Horvath email@example.com
"I need to find a pithy new quote." -- me