Re: IA64 ino_t incorrectly sized?

From: David Mosberger <>
Date: 2003-09-18 03:26:25
>>>>> On 17 Sep 2003 10:33:47 -0400, Jes Sorensen <> said:

>>>>> "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
  Nathan> 32 bits originally?).  If not, could the IA64 maintainers
  Nathan> push this patch around to the official kernel trees for me?
  Nathan> (pretty please)

  Jes> Hi Nathan,

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

  Jes> David?

Extending ino_t to 64 bits came up last October [1].  AFAIK, nobody
bothered to investigate & send a patch, so things didn't change since


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 13:30:14 2003

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