| To: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs on raid questions |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:55:30 +0100 |
| Cc: | Joshua Baker-LePain <jlb17@xxxxxxxx>, Seth Mos <seth.mos@xxxxxxxxx>, campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040618215335.GA16407@taniwha.stupidest.org> |
| References: | <20040617152353.GB2511@helium.inexs.com> <40D1D87D.9030208@xfs.org> <20040617184510.GB4309@helium.inexs.com> <40D2BC7E.3040402@xs4all.nl> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406180851210.10588@chaos.egr.duke.edu> <20040618215034.GA16343@taniwha.stupidest.org> <20040618215206.GA28367@infradead.org> <20040618215335.GA16407@taniwha.stupidest.org> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:53:35PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:52:06PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > It's always 16TB as that's a pagecache limit (page->index is a 32bit > > scalar in PAGE_CACHE_SIZE = 4k units). > > Yeah, I was more worried about signedness cleanliness as some people > has trouble over 8TB apparently. well, the driver doesn't see those indices at all, they always see flat 64bit block numbers. So if someone manages to get in a signedness issue it'd have to be the fs or pagecache code.. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Corrupted Filesystem, Chris Wedgwood |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs oops (CVS-2004-05-15_05:00_UTC), Krzysztof Rusocki |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs on raid questions, Chris Wedgwood |
| Next by Thread: | xfs on raid questions, Chuck Campbell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |