Re: blocks or KB? (was: .. current meaning of blk_size array)

[Andreas Dilger]

On Nov 15, 2001  13:31 -0500, William Park wrote:
> I looked around, and 1KB block size is hard-coded in too many places.
> For example, function 'generic_make_request()' in
> 'drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c' assumes 512 sector and 1024 block size:

Yes, it _would_ be nice to clean this up, but it is a lot of work.  You
could check out Anton's patch (posted today) for this as a starting point.

> Is changing 'int' to 'u64' (and all the dependent code) enough to get
> 64-bit block devices?  I'm willing to do the work.

It is already done, please don't duplicate.  Search for 64 bit block
devices around June of this year for a URL to Jens'/Ben's patch.  Please
repost the URL, as several people have asked.

> I don't care about filesystem; that's the job for maintainer of particular
> filesystem.  I understand XFS is 64-bit, so I can use that.

FYI, ext2/ext3 _should_ be OK up to 8TB (possibly 16TB depending on sign
issues) filesystem, with individual files at 2TB, when using a 4kB block
size.  However, there appear to be other issues like VFS and page cache
which may have problems at this point as well.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/