On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> On Monday, July 19, 1999 11:08 AM, David Murn [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> : On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> :
> : > > Why has elks chosen a 16 bit inode number for stat when the rest of
> : > > the world has 32 bit inode numbers? It probably is a good idea to use
> : > > 32bit inode numbers.
> :
> : I'd say the simple answer is that because ELKS is targetted at 16bit (or
> : less, ie. not 32bit) machines, that 32bit inode numbers aren't a good
> : idea. Same reason that under Linux/x86, we use 32bit instead of 64bit,
> : simply because we've got a 32bit CPU (or 16bit in the case of ELKS).
> :
>
> Actually, the inode width should be dependent on the size
> of disks attached, not the processor specs...
Yes, this is true, the inode numbers for RFS don't actually exceed 16 bit for
partitions less than 64meg in size. However, I cannot see the problem in using
32 bit inode numbers, very little math ever occurs on then, and they use a
whole 2 bytes more in memory. (I know, it is a bad attitiude :), but 32bit
inodes are throughout the kernel already.)
Beau Kuiper
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
