Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:36:10 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] shmem: respect MAX_LFS_FILESIZE |
| |
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:56:13 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:
> Question: couldn't the 32-bit kernel's MAX_LFS_FILESIZE be almost doubled? > It limits the pagecache index to a signed long, but we use an unsigned long.
I expect it would be OK, yes. The only failure mode I can think of is if someone is using signed long as a pagecache index and I'd be pretty surprised if we've made that mistake anywhere. The potential for goofs is higher down in filesystems, but they shouldn't be using pagecache indices much at all.
Of course it does invite people to write applications which then fail on older kernels, but such is life.
| |