Subject: Re: 64 bit inode changes
To: None <>
From: Christos Zoulas <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 08/15/2005 22:53:37
In article <>,
Joerg Sonnenberger  <> 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 [256], 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?