From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 02:16:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 02:16:21 -0500 Received: from slc248.modem.xmission.com ([166.70.9.248]:44553 "EHLO flinx.biederman.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 02:16:07 -0500 To: Chris Wedgwood Cc: Alan Cox , Alexander Viro , Stefan Traby , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ramfs problem... (unlink of sparse file in "D" state) In-Reply-To: <20010107045346.B696@metastasis.f00f.org> <20010107050718.C696@metastasis.f00f.org> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 07 Jan 2001 00:05:07 -0700 In-Reply-To: Chris Wedgwood's message of "Sun, 7 Jan 2001 05:07:18 +1300" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Chris Wedgwood 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 > > > > 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/