Re: stat64 for over 2TB file returned invalid st_blocks

[Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>]

On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 14:24 -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Dec 06, 2005  09:48 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 08:30 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > > I think it looks good.  The only issue I have is that I agree with
> > > Andreas that i_blocks should be of type sector_t.  I find the case of
> > > accessing very large files over nfs with CONFIG_LBD disabled to be very
> > > unlikely.
> > 
> > NO! sector_t is a block-device specific type. It does not belong in the
> > generic inode.
> 
> sector_t would imply "units of 512-byte sectors", and this is exactly
> what i_blocks is actually measuring, so I don't really understand your
> objection.

Strictly speaking, sector_t is a block offset that happens to be in
"units of 1<<inode->i_blkbits bytes". It is not a count of the number of
blocks in a file.

> If you have objection to the use of sector_t, it could be some other type
> that is defined virtually identically as CONFIG_LBD sector_t, except that
> it might be desirable to allow it to be configured separately for network
> filesystems that have large files.  I'm sure the embedded linux folks
> wouldn't be thrilled at an extra 4 bytes in every inode and 64-bit math
> if they don't really use it.

That would be fine.

Cheers,
  Trond