From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935565AbZDIXix (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:38:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754017AbZDIXin (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:38:43 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:51763 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752097AbZDIXim (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:38:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:36:10 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Hugh Dickins Cc: yur@emcraft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] shmem: respect MAX_LFS_FILESIZE Message-Id: <20090409163610.8619bfc7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:56:13 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins 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.