Re: ramfs problem... (unlink of sparse file in "D" state)

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

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/