On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Linda Walsh wrote:
> > It may not matter too too much, but blocks are being passed around as
> > 'ints'. On the ia32 architecture, this implies a maximum of 512*2G->1T
> > disk size. Probably don't need to worry about this today, but in a few
> > years? Should we be changing the internal interfaces to use a long (or
> > a long unsigned -- why signed?) Maybe for 2.5/2.6 timeframe? Just
> > curious...
> As far as the VFS goes, this is only in the fs-dependent part of the
> inode. The practical effect is the same.
> What I'd like to add is: while we're at it, how about losing the 512
> byte magic multiplier and go with the filesystem block size? That way
> Ext2 file size automatically goes up by a factor of 8 every time we
> manage to double the filesystem block size (blocksize*2 and triple
> indirect => 2**3).
And what, pray tell, is the fs block size when you do tar cf /dev/hdc?
Or fsck /dev/hdc1, for that matter...
Device layer has no business to know about the filesystem. Really.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST