Roman Zippel wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Roman Zippel wrote:
If you force everyone to use 64bit sector numbers, I don't understand how
you can claim "still working just fine on 32bit"?
64bit sector numbers work just fine on 32-bit machines.
Depends on the definition of "fine".
At some point ext4 is probably going to be the de facto standard, which very
many people want to use, because it has all the new features, which won't be
ported to ext2/3. So I still don't understand, what's so wrong about a
little tuning in both directions?
Just seems like wasted effort to me.
I disagree.
Many developer still brag about how Linux runs on about everything, but
it's little steps like this, which make it more and more a joke.
What joke? With CONFIG_LBD, 32-bit machines can already support large
block devices.
If you feel that hardcoding u64 as sector numbers will mean ext4
suddenly fails on 32-bit, you misunderstand the situation completely.
Linux (and ext4) will continue to run everywhere.
Jeff
-
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]
