* s_maxbytes on isofs for 2.4
@ 2005-11-27 21:23 Andries.Brouwer
2005-11-28 13:46 ` Marcelo Tosatti
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andries.Brouwer @ 2005-11-27 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
I got a problem report on the handling of large (2.4GB) files
with isofs, where 2.6 was fine and 2.4 failed. Replied
>I suspect that the difference between 2.4 and 2.6 is the assignment
> s->s_maxbytes = 0xffffffff;
>in isofs/inode.c. Could you try to add that after
> s->s_magic = ISOFS_SUPER_MAGIC;
>in the 2.4 source?
and got the confirmation that that solves the problems.
Maybe one should consider adding this in 2.4.
No, I have not audited the source. If in fact there is
a reason why files this size are not handled correctly,
there should probably be an assignment with the largest
value that is handled correctly, together with a comment.
Andries
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: s_maxbytes on isofs for 2.4
2005-11-27 21:23 s_maxbytes on isofs for 2.4 Andries.Brouwer
@ 2005-11-28 13:46 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2005-11-28 20:33 ` Andries Brouwer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2005-11-28 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andries.Brouwer; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hi Andries,
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 10:23:40PM +0100, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> I got a problem report on the handling of large (2.4GB) files
> with isofs, where 2.6 was fine and 2.4 failed. Replied
>
> >I suspect that the difference between 2.4 and 2.6 is the assignment
> > s->s_maxbytes = 0xffffffff;
> >in isofs/inode.c. Could you try to add that after
> > s->s_magic = ISOFS_SUPER_MAGIC;
> >in the 2.4 source?
>
> and got the confirmation that that solves the problems.
> Maybe one should consider adding this in 2.4.
> No, I have not audited the source. If in fact there is
> a reason why files this size are not handled correctly,
> there should probably be an assignment with the largest
> value that is handled correctly, together with a comment.
My knowledge is quite limited, but I can't spot any issues with
files upto 4GB. Who was the reporter?
Yes, suppose we could include it if there is interest to confirm safety.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: s_maxbytes on isofs for 2.4
2005-11-28 13:46 ` Marcelo Tosatti
@ 2005-11-28 20:33 ` Andries Brouwer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andries Brouwer @ 2005-11-28 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marcelo Tosatti; +Cc: Andries.Brouwer, linux-kernel
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 11:46:43AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > I got a problem report on the handling of large (2.4GB) files
> > with isofs, where 2.6 was fine and 2.4 failed. Replied
> >
> > >I suspect that the difference between 2.4 and 2.6 is the assignment
> > > s->s_maxbytes = 0xffffffff;
> > >in isofs/inode.c. Could you try to add that after
> > > s->s_magic = ISOFS_SUPER_MAGIC;
> > >in the 2.4 source?
> >
> > and got the confirmation that that solves the problems.
> > Maybe one should consider adding this in 2.4.
>
> I can't spot any issues with files upto 4GB.
> Who was the reporter?
Giulio Orsero <giulioo \x40 pobox \x2e com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-11-28 20:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-11-27 21:23 s_maxbytes on isofs for 2.4 Andries.Brouwer
2005-11-28 13:46 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2005-11-28 20:33 ` Andries Brouwer
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®