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 16:24:25 +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> <44DB3D65.6030308@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: To: Jeff Garzik In-Reply-To: <44DB3D65.6030308@garzik.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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. bye, Roman