Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string

From: Jeff Garzik
Date: Thu Aug 10 2006 - 07:59:49 EST

Roman Zippel wrote:

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...


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at