From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ey0-f177.google.com ([209.85.215.177]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1QBpUm-00047H-Iq for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:32:09 +0000 Received: by eyh6 with SMTP id 6so1578090eyh.36 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] mkfs.jffs2: fix casting of __off64_t From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Mike Frysinger In-Reply-To: References: <1302783893.2796.27.camel@localhost> <802c3655ae5130e95b01e5004710f206a3d9ef9c.1303115468.git.ext-andriy.shevchenko@nokia.com> <2285954c62e0401291aa3f5055bc79c6789149d7.1303115468.git.ext-andriy.shevchenko@nokia.com> <1303134901.8589.9.camel@localhost> <1303135646.8589.12.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:29:12 +0300 Message-ID: <1303136952.8589.13.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Andy Shevchenko Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 10:21 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:07, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 10:04 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 09:55, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > >> > On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 09:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 04:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> >> > The casting of __off64_t to unsigned long potentially wrong for values higher > >> >> > than ULONG_MAX. Let's fix that. > >> >> > >> >> i dont think this is the way to go. on 64bit systems, long long is > >> >> 128bits. i imagine the way to go (assuming we're always using LFS) is > >> >> to use PRIu64 from inttypes.h > >> > > >> > sizeof(unsigned long long) is 8 (64 bits) on my x86_64 fedora. > >> > >> so it is. i still think PRIu64 is the correct way to handle this as > >> there is no sizeof() assumption and no need for casting. > > > > Never used this, but yes, as long as this is something which has worked > > for ages and we are not going to have "this is not supported" issues - > > sure! > > glibc has been shipping this since 1999 (if not earlier), so i dont > think that'll be an issue. glibc-2.2.5 was released in 2002, and it's > hard to even find that anymore. > OK, sure, thanks for pointing this! -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)