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-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
