On 08/27/2017 02:47 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Doug, >> I noticed while checking for other implications of changing MAX_LFS_FILESIZE >> that fs/jfs/super.c is also working around this limit. > > Note to people: I just committed the patch to update MAX_LFS_FILESIZE. > > I made it use the simpler (and clearer) calculation of > > ((loff_t)ULONG_MAX << PAGE_SHIFT) > > for the 32-bit case, and I did *not* change any other users. > > The jfs comment was a bit confusing, and talks about "wraps around" at > 8TB, when that actually happens at 16TB. Yes, if you use a signed > number for the index, it does wrap at 8TB, but you really shouldn't > (and the code the jfs comment points to doesn't). > > So I didn't touch that. Nor did I touch: > >> it also makes sense to fix jfs_fill_super() to >> use MAX_LFS_FILESIZE instead of JFS rolling its own, something like: >> >> /* logical blocks are represented by 40 bits in pxd_t, etc. >> * and page cache is indexed by long. */ >> sb->s_maxbytes = min((u64)sb->s_blocksize) << 40, >> MAX_LFS_FILESIZE); > > which I agree should be modified. The new MAX_LFS_FILESIZE should be > the right size, but the difference now is only one page less one byte. I'll submit a patch to clean up jfs. Thanks, Shaggy > > Linus >
