From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Subject: RE: stat64 for over 2TB file returned invalid st_blocks
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:52:08 -0500
Message-ID: <1133963528.27373.4.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
References: <000001c5fb1d$0a27c8d0$4168010a@bsd.tnes.nec.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 'Andreas Dilger' <adilger@clusterfs.com>,
	'Dave Kleikamp' <shaggy@austin.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1751025AbVLGNwd@vger.kernel.org>
To: Takashi Sato <sho@tnes.nec.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <000001c5fb1d$0a27c8d0$4168010a@bsd.tnes.nec.co.jp>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 19:57 +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:

> On my previous mail, I said that CONFIG_LBD should not determine
> whether large single files is enabled.  But after further
> consideration, on such a small system that CONFIG_LBD is disabled,
> using large filesystem over network seems to be very rare.
> So I think that the type of i_blocks should be sector_t.

???? Where do you get this misinformation from?

Cheers,
  Trond