Re: IA64 ino_t incorrectly sized?

From: Nathan Scott <>
Date: 2003-09-29 15:52:56
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:26:25AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>>> 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
> then.
> 	--david
> [1]

I notice a big batch of IA64 changes has just gone into 2.6-test6,
but this change seems to be missing.  Is it in someones queue for
next time or do I need to describe the problem more clearly?

The investigation and the patch I sent are available here[2].



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Mon Sep 29 01:56:15 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:18 EST