Subject: Re: 64 bit inode changes
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/15/2005 22:53:37
In article <20050815221426.GA1223@britannica.bec.de>,
Joerg Sonnenberger <email@example.com> wrote:
>> - nfs
>This is similiar to UFS. The structure of the NFS code just makes it
>harder to correctly fix.
Ok, I will look into that next then. I thought that since you could
export other than UFS over NFS it would have worked properly.
>It might also be a good point to remove the hard-wired d_name length in
>dirent. The constant for its length should at the very least be NAME_MAX
>and not MAXNAMLEN.
I have not changed NAME_MAX , but I have used 512 as MAXNAMLEN now.
I think I will leave NAME_MAX to 256 for now.
>I've choosen _DIRENT_ALLOC and _DIRENT_NEXT for the
>macros to determine the filesystem dependent struct dirent size and
>compute the address of the next dirent. I think it would be helpful if
>we can agree on one convention :-) The underscore was choosen because
>this macros are not part of SUS.
Sounds like fine names to me. I will change mine. Does your ALLOC take
one or two arguments? What about NEXT?