xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: require 64-bit sector_t
From: "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 13:48:35 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dojwT1KtoHmdoIfshUK0me4Fh1EYzAHKwGkOOL87Rlk=; b=TEnrvH3uLleQ651QktHg3W9WlGrFDf5ejRiPm+plAWAHzOhr3yJ1R728fhg6h9psMc GNaQtELgjm+XgVPFQLpsMEQOOWzHMWG5DY1apkNKusynYi5rQUS2XSVTH9ex2MuvKOVM IOUKWZhmKUfZm5SF5LCqZCh/bZFOVkyIejRazJlhgwNvoKoo4ojLAknlSzq5fqRSYU0N WdyLn/T3IwjHnBP5Q7ichzkmoU2KZlVDCJnfIDCRXMFJ7P0Xiu/pfJEKoZFNAXfBRZ04 lX2l5F/Rw3HYNcc4IxcxTSrAx8CNQJkBRpwJcIRsrzfMEsG8WifNP3pu/2IbFTvZwyqe nn4A==
In-reply-to: <20140109151903.GF1935@xxxxxxx>
References: <20131114164603.GA13628@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131216221559.GO1935@xxxxxxx> <20140109151903.GF1935@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
On 01/09/2014 10:19 AM, Ben Myers wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 04:15:59PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>> Hey Christoph,
>>
>> 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>
>>
>> This looks ok to me.  I'm not seeing much downside to removing the smaller
>> in-memory types.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Anyone else have an opinion on this one?  I think its 3.14 material and I'd
> like to pull it in.
> 
> Thanks,
>       Ben

Either way is fine with me.  I use CONFIG_LBDAF=n, but it isn't a make-or-break 
kernel config option.  Most issues I've seen in testing were solved by Jeff 
Liu's patches.  This part of the test matrix seemed okay, but if Christoph 
wants 
to get rid of it, that's fine.  The XFS support matrix is rather brutal...

Thanks!

Michael

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