On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> Also, that patch would break many 32-bit programs not compiled with large
> offsets when run in compatibility mode on a 64-bit kernel. If they were to
> do a stat on this inode, it would likely generate an EOVERFLOW error since
> the pointer address would probably not fit in a 32 bit field.
>
> That problem was the whole impetus for this set of patches.
Well, we have that problem with the slowly incrementing "last_ino" too.
Should we make "last_ino" be "static unsigned int" instead of "long"?
Does anybody actually even use the old stat() with 32-bit interfaces? We
warn for it, and we've done so for a long time.. I dont' remember people
even complaining about the warning, so..
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
