On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:28:44AM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote: > Hi Sascha, > > > > > No no, you were right. This indeed has to be a loff_t. Where did you > > find that the fs layer uses size_t? It should do so only for the length > > arguments of read/write and friends. > > > > In function read_file :). The parameter size should be changed to > loff_t instead of size_t, because we make "*size = s.st_size;". > > > > The point is, that a file can be greater than 4GB, but we _can't_ > read/write a "block" from a file that is greather than 4GB. > > But in this function we do "read(fd, buf, s.st_size) < s.st_size", this > need to be in small (max) 4GB pieces(if necessary). In other words, we > can't use s.st_size here if the file is greater than ((size_t)-1). > > I don't think if we need something like this, because we never handle > files which are greater than 4GB. > > That's my point of view. This example is only for a 32Bit architecture. Ok, so read_file is broken for files > 4GiB. I think we can live with this for a while ;) BTW the maximum memory size the tlsf allocator can handle is 1GiB, we have to overcome this first. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
