On Thu, May 29 2008, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2008 schrieb Jens Axboe:
> > > > Just that u64 seems like overkill: u32?
> > >
> > > Definitely, u32 would be just fine, u64 is way overkill :-)
> >
> > Even u16 would work, the block layer doesn't use more than an unsigne
Am Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2008 schrieb Jens Axboe:
> > > Just that u64 seems like overkill: u32?
> >
> > Definitely, u32 would be just fine, u64 is way overkill :-)
>
> Even u16 would work, the block layer doesn't use more than an unsigned
> short for storing hardware sector size anyway.
Thanks, go
On Thu, May 29 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 May 2008 19:04:59 Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > Rusty, Jens,
> >
> > I need your opinion on the following patch. It seems to work, but I would
> > like to get some feedback if this patch is the right approach:
>
> Looks like the right ap
On Thu, May 29 2008, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, May 29 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 May 2008 19:04:59 Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > Rusty, Jens,
> > >
> > > I need your opinion on the following patch. It seems to work, but I would
> > > like to get some feedback if this patch
Am Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2008 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> On Tuesday 27 May 2008 19:04:59 Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > Rusty, Jens,
> >
> > I need your opinion on the following patch. It seems to work, but I would
> > like to get some feedback if this patch is the right approach:
>
> Looks like the
On Tuesday 27 May 2008 19:04:59 Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Rusty, Jens,
>
> I need your opinion on the following patch. It seems to work, but I would
> like to get some feedback if this patch is the right approach:
Looks like the right approach to me. Don't know about the block side of it...
