Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: ramfs problem... (unlink of sparse file in "D" state) | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | 07 Jan 2001 00:05:07 -0700 |
| |
Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 03:58:20PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > Ext2 handles large files almost properly. (properly on 2.2 + > patches) NFSv3 handles large files but might be missing the > O_LARGEFILE check. I believe reiserfs went to at least 4Gig. > > reiserfs 3.6.x under 2.4.x should go much higher unless i am reading > something wrong > > <pause> > > yup, it does. > > > as for NFS, I'm not sure how to pass O_LARGEFILE via the protocol and > since NFS isn't really POSIX like anyhow decided we might as well > just ingore it and have all sys_open calls for NFS look like > O_LARGEFILE was specified
Umm. No. The object of LFS stuff is so that programs that can't handle large files don't shoot themselves in the foot. You don't need to pass O_LARGEFILE over the protocol and knfsd doesn't need to handle it. But with out specifying O_LARGEFILE you should be limited to 2GB on 32bit systems.
Moving some of the LFS checks into the VFS does sound good.
When I looked at one of the BSD's a while ago, they had a max file size in (the superblock?) and the VFS did basic max file size checking. And I think it handled all of the LFS API at the VFS layer as well. Alan these are two seperate but related issues.
Putting the LFS checks, & max filesize checks into the VFS sounds right for 2.4.x because it fixes lots of filesystems, with just a couple of lines of code.
Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |