Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string

[Jeff Garzik]

Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > That also being said...  does a 32-bit sector_t make any sense on a
> > 48-bit-blocknumber filesystem?  I'd have thought that we'd just make ext4
> > depend on 64-bit sector_t and be done with it.
>
> Is this really necessary? There are a few features, which would make ext4 
> also interesting at the low end (e.g. extents). Storing 64bit values on 
> disk is fine, but they should be converted to native values as soon as 
> possible.

Consider what that means.  "converted to native" means dealing with 
truncation issues...

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/