On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Simon Burge wrote:

> Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 
> > [[ Description of large inodes for ffs deleted ]]
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> Is this intended to replace the 128 byte inode or be a choice at newfs
> time?  I can think of some situations where the doubling the inode
> overhead might not be desired - news (and possibly mail) spools, as well
> as my cddb database partition.

Choice at newfs time. In fact you have to request large inodes. :-) (newfs
-L)

> Don't get me wrong though, what you've done sounds great!
> 
> One other thing:
> 
> > a flags byte to
> > indicate what optional data is present ... One of the
> > bits in the flag byte indicates the presence of application-specific data.
> > The other bits will indicate the presence of ACL's, etc., when defined.
> 
> Is a byte enough?  Maybe a u_int32_t might give more room for
> expansion...

It actually is a u_int32_t. A byte would give struct alignment
difficulties. 

Take care,

Bill