From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] OCFS2: Allow huge (> 16 TiB) volumes to mount Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:37:03 -0700 Message-ID: References: <871vbax86w.fsf@patl.com> <87zkxyvtjt.fsf@patl.com> <3BB069D5-B193-43A4-B678-B3CEA4873B58@dilger.ca> <20100713012506.GA30737@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Andreas Dilger , ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:57404 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752449Ab0GMBhE (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:37:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100713012506.GA30737@dastard> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > The XFS code is different to the above because there is still a 16TB > size limit on 32 bit systemsi (i.e. page cache address limits). IOWs, > you can't just remove the above 16TB check unless you (i.e. OCFS2) > handle >16TB block devices on 32 bit systems correctly... If you look at my patch, you will see that is precisely what it does. As the comments indicate, it uses the exact same check as ext4, which will correctly refuse to mount huge volumes on 32-bit systems. The XFS test appears to be the same thing written a little differently. Andreas is suggesting that somebody should factor out this check into a common library routine. That sounds like a fine idea, but it also sounds orthogonal to the (simple and useful) patch I am attempting to submit. - Pat