From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0677F3F for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:27:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from whiskey.americas.sgi.com (whiskey.americas.sgi.com [128.162.233.19]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5A0AC004 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 07:27:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:19:03 -0600 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: require 64-bit sector_t Message-ID: <20140109151903.GF1935@sgi.com> References: <20131114164603.GA13628@infradead.org> <20131216221559.GO1935@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131216221559.GO1935@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 04:15:59PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Christoph, > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 08:46:03AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Trying to support tiny disks only and saving a bit memory might have > > made sense on an SGI O2 15 years ago, but is pretty pointless today. > > > > Remove the rarely tested codepath that uses various smaller in-memory > > types to reduce our test matrix and make the codebase a little bit > > smaller and less complicated. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > This looks ok to me. I'm not seeing much downside to removing the smaller > in-memory types. > > Reviewed-by: Ben Myers Anyone else have an opinion on this one? I think its 3.14 material and I'd like to pull it in. Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs