[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS installer

To: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS installer
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:48:07 +0200
Cc: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>, Brandon Barker <bebarker@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200108101346.f7ADkQ307720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from lord@xxxxxxx on Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 08:46:26AM -0500
References: <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx> <200108101346.f7ADkQ307720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 08:46:26AM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:

> The page size == block size will get fixed, we need to do that, but it
> may take a while. Block size less than pagesize will come first, blocksize
> greater than pagesize needs PAGE_CACHE_SIZE to be bumped, which appears to
> be on the cards for 2.5.
> V1 directories mostly work in Linux, but there are glibc getdents issues
> with them. The glibc code which lseeks backwards in a directory is the issue,
> if you have control over your glibc it can be fixed by using the 64 bit
> version of lseek in this code. This is all because the directory offset in
> V1 is a 64 bit hash value, not a 32 bit signed number.

So in other words that means using kernel 2.4 / glibc 2.2 and for 32-bit
systems building applications with the large file API.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>