Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string

Roman Zippel
2006-08-10T12:30:06Z

Hi,

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> > 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...

Yes, it does, but I don't think it's that difficult - basically returning
-EIO, it should be part of the basic error handling. Afterwards you don't
have to waste cpu/memory on unused data anymore.

bye, Roman