Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string

Roman Zippel
2006-08-10T11:11:05Z

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.

bye, Roman