Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Should we make inode->i_ino a u64?

Hi Kolbjørn,

On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 at 08:46, Kolbjørn Barmen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2026, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > Like Debian, the Linux kernel development community is very much a
> > do-ocracy --- only more so.  If the 32-bit community really cares about
> > Linux support, they need to be providing volunteer labor to kernel
> > development, instead of demanding that everyone else pay the overhead
> > tax of supporting 32-bit platforms which are rapidly disappearing.
>
> This tells me that it is time for "the 32-bit community" (wtf) to either
> look elsewhere, or start thinking of forking the Linux kernel perhaps
> sooner rather than later, so we don't bother "the 64-bit community" so
> much.
>
> > I will note that Debian itself has made the decision to stop supporting
> > the Debian Installer for i386 and the 32-bit armel platform in Debian Trixie.

Note "armel", not "armhf".

> Which is why (for example) Raspberry Pi is maintaining their own Raspberry Pi OS,
> as they have 32-bit systems that aren't EOL for another 3-4 years.

https://lwn.net/Articles/1051010/:
"In 204x, support for the last 32-bit architectures would be removed."

However, by then they will have all run out of memory.
E.g. we recently got 64 (128 on 64-bit) KiB of "gaps", cfr.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds