Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/