On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:58:24AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > One concern I have with the proposal is that it would forever rule out > support of >16T devices on 32-bit machines. > > At present with 64-bit sector_t and 32-bit pgoff_t, I think we'd have a > reasonable chance of supporting, say, four 8T partitions on a 32T > device. But if we were to switch the kernel from using four 4T > address_spaces (sda1-4) over to using a single 32T address_space (sda) > then we can rule it all out. how do you plan to write the partition label in your hypothetic setup if you can't open the main device? And even if we solved that and people could create partitions on these devices but not open the main device, or use large lvm volumes it would be an absolutely major confusion. So I really don't think your made up case matters. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
