From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] OCFS2: Allow huge (> 16 TiB) volumes to mount Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:00:10 -0700 Message-ID: References: <871vbax86w.fsf@patl.com> <87zkxyvtjt.fsf@patl.com> <3BB069D5-B193-43A4-B678-B3CEA4873B58@dilger.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:50541 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751243Ab0GMFAM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:00:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Andreas Dilger wro= te: > On 2010-07-12, at 19:08, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: >> >> Are you suggesting I need to do this before my patch is accepted at >> all? =A0Or is this a refactoring that can happen later? > > I'm just suggesting it should be done at some point. =A0I thought it = would be better to do it first, rather than add yet another copy of thi= s code. =A0That said, I hate to block useful fixes because of cleanup (= and I have no control over OCFS2 anyway :-). =A0However, I've found tha= t once the fix is in people usually forget (or become too busy) to do t= he cleanup and it just lingers on unseen. I hear you. I do not object to factoring out the basic addressability test and using it in my patch, leaving it for others -- like yourself :-) -- to modify other file systems to invoke it. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise? If so, where should the function live and what should it be called, do you think? - Pat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html