From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:30:39 -0400 Message-ID: <44DB34FF.4000303@garzik.org> References: <1155172843.3161.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060809234019.c8a730e3.akpm@osdl.org> <44DB203A.6050901@garzik.org> <44DB25C1.1020807@garzik.org> <44DB27A3.1040606@garzik.org> <44DB3151.8050904@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:50912 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161264AbWHJNap (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:30:45 -0400 To: Roman Zippel In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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. > 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. Jeff