From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <199901311220.NAA08437@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: FAT32 (xstat.c)
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:20:57 +0100 (MET)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP-WORKERS)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990131103533.25086O-100000@is> from Eli Zaretskii at "Jan 31, 99 10:35:52 am"
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL15 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > If that's so, then by using LONG_MAX and counting downwards should be
> > sufficient to generate unique inode numbers.
> 
> Support for FAT32 means we *need* to count down.  Even if the cluster
> numbers can get as high as 2^31 - 1, we still run much lower risk of
> clashing with real cluster numbers when we count that way, since a
> typical disk is free near the end.

So if we start at LONG_MAX for _all_ file systems that needs invented
inode numbers, we won't break anything?


Scooter, No Time to Chill,

							MartinS