Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:24:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, cmm@us.ibm.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string
In-Reply-To: <44DB203A.6050901@garzik.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608101409350.6762@scrub.home>
References: <1155172843.3161.81.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <20060809234019.c8a730e3.akpm@osdl.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608101302270.6762@scrub.home>
 <44DB203A.6050901@garzik.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1099
Lines: 27

Hi,

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Jeff Garzik 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...

Yes, it does, but I don't think it's that difficult - basically returning 
-EIO, it should be part of the basic error handling. Afterwards you don't 
have to waste cpu/memory on unused data anymore.

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