From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Zippel Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:52:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: 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=US-ASCII 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 scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:33423 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161269AbWHJNwn (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:52:43 -0400 To: Jeff Garzik In-Reply-To: <44DB34FF.4000303@garzik.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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. bye, Roman