Subject: Re: bin/32785 [dM] du not terabyte-clean
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 07/26/2006 11:21:44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 02:56:41AM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> > I think the change is fine. However I'm wondering if it wouldn't be
> > better to somehow version the _ftsent structure. I doubt that du
> > will be the only directory-walking application that will need to deal
> > with 64-bit values.
> That sounds plausible. But I see no need to version FTSENT. As long
> as the existing fields remain valid and at the same offsets, we can add
> all the new fields we like. We can even publicize the new fields.
> After all, the interface does not include its clients ever allocating
> an FTSENT.
The problem I see is that the last field of _ftsent is the name, which is=
variable length. So we can't readily add new fields w/o moving any other=20
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----