Re: Larger dev_t

[Albert D. Cahalan]

[e-mail] writes:
> [Linus Torvalds]

>> You'e now forced every piece of code that needs a dev_t
>> to carry along the overhead of having a 64-bit field
>
> Let me repeat: there is no such code. In user space dev_t already is
> 64 bits, whether you like it or not. We cannot go back to libc5.
...
> In other words, inside the kernel the normal obvious coding will
> give us ints major, minor. Outside the kernel we have a 64-bit dev_t.
...
> But while dev_t already is 64-bits in user space, the same does not

In your dreams!!!!

int c_has_loose_type_checking(char *name){
  struct stat sbuf;
  /* ... */
  return sbuf.st_rdev;
}

Then we have NFSv2, archive file formats, and zillions of
little tools.

I enjoy truncating dev_t to a reasonable size. Sometimes I check
my input arguments for illogically huge values, and other times I
just relish the opportunity to inflict data loss on you personally.