Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string

Jeff Garzik
2006-08-10T12:02:11Z

Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> That also being said... does a 32-bit sector_t make any sense on a
>> 48-bit-blocknumber filesystem? I'd have thought that we'd just make ext4
>> depend on 64-bit sector_t and be done with it.
>
> Is this really necessary? There are a few features, which would make ext4
> also interesting at the low end (e.g. extents). Storing 64bit values on
> disk is fine, but they should be converted to native values as soon as
> possible.

Consider what that means. "converted to native" means dealing with
truncation issues...

Jeff