On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 14:24 -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Dec 06, 2005 09:48 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 08:30 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > > I think it looks good. The only issue I have is that I agree with
> > > Andreas that i_blocks should be of type sector_t. I find the case of
> > > accessing very large files over nfs with CONFIG_LBD disabled to be very
> > > unlikely.
> >
> > NO! sector_t is a block-device specific type. It does not belong in the
> > generic inode.
>
> sector_t would imply "units of 512-byte sectors", and this is exactly
> what i_blocks is actually measuring, so I don't really understand your
> objection.
Strictly speaking, sector_t is a block offset that happens to be in
"units of 1<<inode->i_blkbits bytes". It is not a count of the number of
blocks in a file.
> If you have objection to the use of sector_t, it could be some other type
> that is defined virtually identically as CONFIG_LBD sector_t, except that
> it might be desirable to allow it to be configured separately for network
> filesystems that have large files. I'm sure the embedded linux folks
> wouldn't be thrilled at an extra 4 bytes in every inode and 64-bit math
> if they don't really use it.
That would be fine.
Cheers,
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
