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 10:26:44 -0400 Message-ID: <44DB4224.7030303@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> <44DB3D65.6030308@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]:56802 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751186AbWHJO0s (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:26:48 -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: > >> 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. > > With CONFIG_LBD disabled you still had the truncation/complexity issues > somewhere else, so you gain nothing, but waste memory in ext4. You gain simplicity and reduced number of code paths. "waste memory" is hardly a significant argument. I doubt you will notice a difference. Jeff