Re: kern/41068: tmpfs assertion

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR kern/41068; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: 
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
 > Cc: 
 > 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
 >  doing? 
 
 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.
 
 Joerg