Wolfgang Jährling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One idea is just a straightforward file somewhere in the filesystem
> > that holds an index of inode numbers and UIDs.
>
> Will we use 64-bit UIDs on 64-bit systems? If so, we should use 64 bit
>
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One idea is just a straightforward file somewhere in the filesystem
> that holds an index of inode numbers and UIDs.
Will we use 64-bit UIDs on 64-bit systems? If so, we should use 64 bit
wide UID fields on 32-bit machines as well, thus staying c
Wolfgang Jährling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This overflow UID can be set with sysctl(8) and defaults to the value
> 65534 (not 65535, as one might expect). It seems to be good enough for
> Linux, but I'm not sure if it is good enough for us, so how should we
> handle this situation? Storing
Hi!
The Minix file system uses 16 bit UIDs, which creates an obvious problem
for us. Linux handles this by using a special "overflow UID":
#define fs_high2lowuid(uid) ((uid) > 65535 ? (uid16_t)fs_overflowuid : \
(uid16_t)(uid))
This
