Re: [PATCH 2/9] sector_t format string

Roman Zippel wrote:
> 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.

Consider what that means.  "converted to native" means dealing with 
truncation issues...

	Jeff




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642