Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:11:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:11:08 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:5906 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:11:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:15:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Anton Altaparmakov cc: Alexander Viro , , Subject: Re: 2.5.28 and partitions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020725030051.02114cb0@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1138 Lines: 27 On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > >u64 for sector_t doesn't change anything for 64bit boxen that might be > >interested in really large disks and screws 32bit ones that shouldn't > >have to pay for that... > > True. That's why sector_t should be a compile time option in the kernel > "Enable large device support > 2TiB: Y/N". Then I am happy and loads of > other people because we can use large raid arrays without having to buy the > latest expensive system and other people are happy for having faster 32-bit > code... Surely we can write robust enough code which will work with either > sector_t size... Careful. One issue is user-level interfaces to the kernel. I would suggest any user level interface should use u64, not "sector_t". So that there is zero confusion. Clearly 64-bit sector numbers will be/are really close to being an issue for some people. Linus - 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/