From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1EC7F3F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:21:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE4CAC003 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id JFFA9mRVx3NScBac (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:21:35 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: require 64-bit sector_t Message-ID: <20140618152135.GA11821@lst.de> References: <1402937045-31103-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20140617141431.GA8905@bfoster.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140617141431.GA8905@bfoster.bfoster> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Brian Foster Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:14:31AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > Given that the existence of the string indicates large block/inode > numbers, shouldn't we leave it to avoid any confusion? That aside, the > rest of the patch looks fine to me. As these have been enabled in any sane configuration I don't really see a point in printing these. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs