xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: require 64-bit sector_t

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: require 64-bit sector_t
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:01:06 -0600
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131213213701.GM1935@xxxxxxx>
References: <20131114164603.GA13628@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131213213701.GM1935@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Hey, 
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:37:01PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 08:46:03AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Trying to support tiny disks only and saving a bit memory might have
> > made sense on an SGI O2 15 years ago, but is pretty pointless today.
> > 
> > Remove the rarely tested codepath that uses various smaller in-memory
> > types to reduce our test matrix and make the codebase a little bit
> > smaller and less complicated.
> > 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/Kconfig b/fs/xfs/Kconfig
> > index 399e8ce..5d47b4d 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/Kconfig
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/Kconfig
> > @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> >  config XFS_FS
> >     tristate "XFS filesystem support"
> >     depends on BLOCK
> > +   depends on (64BIT || LBDAF)
> 
> There are quite a few 32 bit arches in use today.  We need to continue to
> support them in XFS as long as they are supported by the kernel.  Unless I 
> have
> misunderstood what you are suggesting, I believe the answer to this patch must
> be a firm 'no'.

I stepped away for a few minutes and realized my mistake.   ;/ 

Apologies!  I'll take another look at the rest of the patch.

Thanks,
        Ben

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>