On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:32:44 -0600 Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Jul 21, 2009 23:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:08:10 +1000 Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I expect that the VFS could be made to work with 64-bit pgoff_t fairly > > easily. The generated code will be pretty damn sad. > > > > radix-trees use a ulong index, so we would need a new > > lib/radix_tree64.c or some other means of fixing that up. > > > > The bigger problem is filesystems - they'll each need to be checked, > > tested, fixed and enabled. It's probably not too bad for the > > mainstream filesystems which mostly bounce their operations into VFS > > libarary functions anyway. > > I don't think this is a primary concern for most filesystems even today. > Filesystems that work correctly > 16TB on 64-bit platforms should continue > to work correctly on 32-bit platforms. Not if they use an unsigned long to hold a pagecache index anywhere. akpm:/usr/src/25> grep 'unsigned long' fs/*/*.c | wc -l 3465 -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
