Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:15:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:15:08 -0500 Received: from dsl092-013-071.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.13.71]:21686 "EHLO pelerin.serpentine.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:15:07 -0500 Subject: Re: using 2 TB in real life From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" To: Mike Black Cc: Anders Henke , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <029301c2a1d6$85cbe280$f6de11cc@black> References: <20021212111237.GA12143@schlund.de> <029301c2a1d6$85cbe280$f6de11cc@black> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1039713776.16887.4.camel@camp4.serpentine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 12 Dec 2002 09:22:56 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 635 Lines: 17 On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 04:03, Mike Black wrote: > Looks like it's already handled in 2.5. > Here's a patch for 2.4: > http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/patches-index.html The result of the device size calculation that Anders complained about in 2.4.20 was wrong in a different way in Peter's >2TB patch, last I looked. I don't think Peter's patch is necessary for a 1.9TB device, anyway.