Re: IA64 ino_t incorrectly sized?

From: Jes Sorensen <>
Date: 2003-09-18 00:33:47
>>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Scott <> writes:

Nathan> Does anyone know why the IA64 platform-specific ino_t
Nathan> definition is an int and not a long?  Patch below fixes this
Nathan> problem for me but I wonder if there will be side-effects I
Nathan> haven't considered (i.e. was there a reason for making this 32
Nathan> bits originally?).  If not, could the IA64 maintainers push
Nathan> this patch around to the official kernel trees for me?
Nathan> (pretty please)

Hi Nathan,

I am actually surprised it's still a 32 bit int in the kernel. I
deliberately used 64 bit types in glibc so it could be done
right. Must have slipped on fixing the kernel for this one.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Wed Sep 17 10:34:58 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:17 EST