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

xfs

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

To:	Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [PATCH] xfs: require 64-bit sector_t
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Date:	Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:21:35 +0200
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to:	xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<20140617141431.GA8905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:	<1402937045-31103-1-git-send-email-hch@xxxxxx> <20140617141431.GA8905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent:	Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:14:31AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> Given that the existence of the string indicates large block/inode
> numbers, shouldn't we leave it to avoid any confusion? That aside, the
> rest of the patch looks fine to me.

As these have been enabled in any sane configuration I don't really see
a point in printing these.

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [PATCH] xfs: require 64-bit sector_t, Christoph Hellwig [PATCH] xfs: require 64-bit sector_t, Christoph Hellwig Re: [PATCH] xfs: require 64-bit sector_t, Brian Foster Re: [PATCH] xfs: require 64-bit sector_t, Christoph Hellwig <=

Previous by Date:	Re: [PATCH] xfs: refine the allocation stack switch, Brian Foster
Next by Date:	Re: log record CRC mismatch: found 0x10a71f1d, expected 0xe012d25f, Christian Kujau
Previous by Thread:	Re: [PATCH] xfs: require 64-bit sector_t, Brian Foster
Next by Thread:	Congratulations!! Your I.P is selected, you could be Todayâs Lucky winner., Lucky Day
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]