On 2/18/13 10:20 AM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> On 18.02.2013 09:12, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 2/18/13 3:43 AM, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>
>>> The more or less simple question is:
>>> Is the requirement for 32bit programs to support 64bit inodes the same
>>> as LFS(Large File Support)?
>>>
>>> IOW if a programs was compiled with FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 (if i remember
>>> that name correctly) should it work?
>>
>> I think so (I don't know where the formal documentation is,
>> http://users.suse.com/~aj/linux_lfs.html is an old but still good
>> over view I think). From open(2):
>>
>> EOVERFLOW
>> (stat()) path refers to a file whose size cannot be
>> represented
>> in the type off_t. This can occur when an
>> application
>> compiled on a 32-bit platform without
>> -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
>> calls stat() on a file whose size exceeds (2<<31)-1 bits.
>>
>> EOVERFLOW can happen if the inode nubmer doesn't fit in a (32-bit)
>> stat struct as well.
>
> I've looked into /usr/include/sys/stat.h
>
> And i see this:
> # ifndef __ino_t_defined
> # ifndef __USE_FILE_OFFSET64
> typedef __ino_t ino_t;
> # else
> typedef __ino64_t ino_t;
> # endif
> # define __ino_t_defined
> # endif
>
> So ino_t really is __ino64_t when compiled with the LFS option, which
> answers my original question. :-)
>
> Besides i don't have that many programs that (should) care about inodes.
> Of the top of my head i care about rsync/perl/find/ln/ls, which
> apparently work correctly.
find cares, ls cares . . . but I would assume that they get it right :)
I'm getting a box set up w/ 32-bit F18, I want to re-run my test over it
and see if things have improved at all in 5 years. :)
-Eric
|