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.

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...

Simon.