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 10:06:29 -0400 Message-ID: <44DB3D65.6030308@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> <44DB34FF.4000303@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]:5090 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161296AbWHJOGe (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:06:34 -0400 To: Roman Zippel In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.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