From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@austin.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:18:05 -0500 (CDT)
I don't like this fix. I know 32767 is a lot of links, but I don't like
artificially lowering a limit like this just because one architecture
defines nlink_t incorrectly. I'd rather get rid of the compiler warnings
with a cast in the few places the limit is checked, even though that is
a little bit ugly.
"incorrectly"? There are no correct or incorrect values for any
of these types, which is why they are defined on a per-platform
basis.
If you impose different limits on different platforms, that means
that a jfs/reiserfs filesystem that works properly on one platform
may not function properly on another.
That is something I'd certainly deem "incorrect" :-)
Every other filesystem can be plugged into an arbitrary Linux platform
and be expected to work properly, don't make jfs/reiserfs an exception
to this.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:23 EST