|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|
|References:||<20040617152353.GB2511@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40D1D87D.9030208@xxxxxxx> <20040617184510.GB4309@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40D2BC7E.3040402@xxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406180851210.10588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040618215034.GA16343@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040618215206.GA28367@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040618215335.GA16407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
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>|