Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>> Roman Zippel wrote:
>>> If you force everyone to use 64bit sector numbers, I don't understand how
>>> you can claim "still working just fine on 32bit"?
>> 64bit sector numbers work just fine on 32-bit machines.
> 
> Depends on the definition of "fine".
> 
>>> At some point ext4 is probably going to be the de facto standard, which very
>>> many people want to use, because it has all the new features, which won't be
>>> ported to ext2/3. So I still don't understand, what's so wrong about a
>>> little tuning in both directions?
>> Just seems like wasted effort to me.
> 
> I disagree.
> Many developer still brag about how Linux runs on about everything, but 
> it's little steps like this, which make it more and more a joke.

What joke?  With CONFIG_LBD, 32-bit machines can already support large 
block devices.

If you feel that hardcoding u64 as sector numbers will mean ext4 
suddenly fails on 32-bit, you misunderstand the situation completely.

Linux (and ext4) will continue to run everywhere.

	Jeff