From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967833Ab2EQXKz (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2012 19:10:55 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:34542 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965794Ab2EQXKy (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2012 19:10:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 16:10:52 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "Vladimir =?UTF-8?Q?'=CF=86-coder/phcoder'?= Serbinenko" Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Evgeniy Dushistov Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase file size limit on FreeBSD UFS flavours Message-Id: <20120517161052.d37cf8ae.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <4FAFBC30.4040305@gmail.com> References: <4FAFBC30.4040305@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 13 May 2012 15:50:40 +0200 Vladimir '__-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > Increase the file size limit on FreeBSD UFS flavours. > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko > > diff --git a/fs/ufs/super.c b/fs/ufs/super.c > index ac8e279..7e80a68 100644 > --- a/fs/ufs/super.c > +++ b/fs/ufs/super.c > @@ -768,6 +768,7 @@ static int ufs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) > uspi->s_fshift = 9; > uspi->s_sbsize = super_block_size = 1536; > uspi->s_sbbase = 0; > + sb->s_maxbytes = MAX_LFS_FILESIZE; > flags |= UFS_DE_44BSD | UFS_UID_44BSD | UFS_ST_44BSD | UFS_CG_44BSD; > break; > case UFS_MOUNT_UFSTYPE_UFS2: > @@ -778,6 +779,7 @@ static int ufs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) > uspi->s_fshift = 9; > uspi->s_sbsize = super_block_size = 1536; > uspi->s_sbbase = 0; > + sb->s_maxbytes = MAX_LFS_FILESIZE; > flags |= UFS_TYPE_UFS2 | UFS_DE_44BSD | UFS_UID_44BSD | UFS_ST_44BSD | UFS_CG_44BSD; > break; > But MAX_NON_LFS exists for a reason. Before this change, the Linux UFS implementation had never had to deal with >4G files (I assume). Are you telling us that the fs has been thoroughly audited and tested with large files and that it all worked OK with no other changes?