Re: [PATCH] Unify CONFIG_LBD and CONFIG_LSF handling

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 06:12:50PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > The *default* is N as that's the answer most people want.  The *safe*
> > answer is Y as it won't prevent you from getting access to your data.
> > Makes sense?
> 
> This would imply that most people with 32bit systems have 2TB files, which 
> I think is rather unlikely. Distributions can turn this option on, but I 
> think people who compile their own kernel, either understand this option 
> or don't need it.

I think it implies exactly the opposite.

In any case, the length of this thread answers your question from earlier:
No, I won't fix bug 6719 as part of this patch.  It's a completely
unrelated issue and the problem is ill-defined.  It's also something
that's infinitely arguable.

The original patch is simple and fixes one problem: that architecture
people are supposed to learn about LSF and LBD when it really has no
effect on their architecture.

-
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/