Re: any chance we could dump the 64k subdirectory limit before 2.4ships?

From: Hans Reiser (hans@reiser.to)
Date: Sun May 28 2000 - 21:49:56 EDT

Next message: Michal Jaegermann: "Re: Actual environment size comparison of CML1 and CML2"

Previous message: Keith Owens: "Spurious entries in 2.[34] kernel tarballs"
In reply to: Alexander Viro: "Re: any chance we could dump the 64k subdirectory limit before 2.4 ships?"
Next in thread: Marc Lehmann: "Re: (reiserfs) Re: any chance we could dump the 64k subdirectory limit before 2.4 ships?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Alexander Viro wrote:

> Again, there _are_ reasons
> to change struct stat, but we'ld better collect these changes and do them
> in one step.

I agree on this point, and I am not feeling any need to get pushy about the 16
bit limit on nlink, I am just passing on user feature requests. It seems it is
too late for 2.3 new features though, so let's do it in 2.5. Sorry Xuan.

Hans

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Michal Jaegermann: "Re: Actual environment size comparison of CML1 and CML2"
Previous message: Keith Owens: "Spurious entries in 2.[34] kernel tarballs"
In reply to: Alexander Viro: "Re: any chance we could dump the 64k subdirectory limit before 2.4 ships?"
Next in thread: Marc Lehmann: "Re: (reiserfs) Re: any chance we could dump the 64k subdirectory limit before 2.4 ships?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 27 2000 - 20:03:16 EDT