Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:29:43 -0500 (EST) | From | "Richard B. Johnson" <> | Subject | Re: VFS 64-bit clean |
| |
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Harald Koenig wrote:
> On Feb 20, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > Agreed in the general case (in other words: for the syscall interface). > > But the internal representation on disk is mostly independant and since it's > > used in ext2fs to represent [acm]time and since those accesses could not have > > happened before 1970 since ext2fs didn't exist at the time, it seems perfectly > > fine to use unsigned 32bit ints (which get translated to signed 64bit or signed > > 32bit for VFS interfacing). > > not fully true. what happens if you'd like to copy files from a pretty old machine > and keep the files' timestamps from pre-1970 from that (obviously non-UNIX) > file system ? > > I know of similar transistions (well, not exactly pre-1970 but pretty close), > but lucky enough time stamps of files doesn't matter in that case ;-)
Wouldn't it be better to make an "ext3" file-system that is a 64-bit version of the ext2 one? That way, everybody is happy and everything works.
Using 64-bit long-longs will never be efficient in a 32-bit machine even if you had a lot of registers (which Intel machines don't have). If you absolutely-positively had to have a 64-bit fs on an Intel machine, you could trade-off the performance penality, but if you didn't been Tbyte files, you would stay with the more efficient ext2.
Cheers, Dick Johnson ***** FILE SYSTEM MODIFIED ***** Penguin : Linux version 2.1.87 on an i586 machine (66.15 BogoMips). Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |