On Monday 20 December 2004 01:55, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > Remove some unnecessary (int32_t) casts that would cause us to screw up
> > the top bit in block addresses.
> >
> > Also, change some daddr_t->int32_t casts (mostly as arguments to
> > ufs_rw32(), where they would get promoted anyway) to u_int32_t.
>
> i don't think these changes are correct.
> at least lfs depends on signed daddr_t.

How could that possibly matter?  daddr_t is 64 bits.  Any u_int32_t would get 
promoted as is.  As far as I'm aware, neither FFS nor LFS put negative block 
numbers *on disk*.