On 01/13/2015 09:23 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 15:42 -0600, Rob Landley wrote: >>> 4 bytes enough? > >> Eh, as long as we're breaking compatibility anyway, we might as well >> extend the file size. It's gzipped so the extra run of consecutive >> zeroes isn't really an issue, and if tmpfs is going to support 64 bit >> file sizes the thing that's populating them should to just to match. >> (You can already have memory bigger than 4g. Some crazy person is going >> to put a squashfs in tmpfs and loopback mount it, or have a giant video >> there, or... Bootloaders being able to cope with this is not my problem. :) > >> Probably having the new fields at the end (and gluing them to the >> earlier ones) makes more sense than having variable sized fields? I >> don't have a strong opinion either way. > > The current file data size header field is a 8 character hexidecimal > string, which is long enough to store 4g (0xFFFFFFFF). The current header fields are all 32 bits, yes. To get a 64 bit field we'd have to add a second 32 bit field and add it <<32 to the original one, or else have the header fields be of varying sizes. That was the "adding a new one to the end" thing mentioned above. Then again if we add a new field right before the previous size then the "treat it as 64 bits vs 2 32 bit ones" is an implementation detail anyway. And for the moment we can just have it be padding that compresses away and wait for an actual >4g file. Unless you think nobody will ever need an archive member >4g in initramfs, even though servers with ~256g are reasonably common today already? Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe initramfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
