[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: kern/41068: tmpfs assertion
The following reply was made to PR kern/41068; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>
Subject: Re: kern/41068: tmpfs assertion
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:05:05 +0200
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 02:45:02AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR kern/41068; it has been noted by GNATS.
> From: David Holland <dholland-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost>
> To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: kern/41068: tmpfs assertion
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 02:44:29 +0000
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:00:07PM +0000, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> >> This cookie scheme is clearly not workable.
> >> Why doesn't it just assign sequence numbers to each node or something?
> > Because Linux compat would fall apart with that rather badly.
> Linux compat would fall over on small integers? What on earth are they
What small numbers do you have in mind? If you don't want to do all the
dance with checking for duplicates, you have to use 64bit numbers.
...and those are a problem for 32bit readdir applications.
Main Index |
Thread Index |