Received:  by oss.sgi.com id <S42346AbQI0OiX>;
	Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:38:23 -0700
Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:33635 "EHLO
        pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP
	id <S42278AbQI0OiA>; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:38:00 -0700
Received: from ledzep.cray.com (ledzep.americas.sgi.com [137.38.226.97]) by pneumatic-tube.sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id HAA08192
	for <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
	mail_from (lord@jen.americas.sgi.com)
Received: from thistle-e185.americas.sgi.com (thistle.americas.sgi.com [128.162.185.204]) by ledzep.cray.com (SGI-SGI-8.9.3/craymail-smart-nospam1.1) with ESMTP id JAA04426; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:35:42 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from jen.americas.sgi.com (jen.americas.sgi.com [128.162.184.86]) by thistle-e185.americas.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/SGI-server-1.6mw) with ESMTP id JAA78890; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:35:42 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from jen.americas.sgi.com (lord@localhost)
	by jen.americas.sgi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01289;
	Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:31:11 -0500
Message-Id: <200009271431.JAA01289@jen.americas.sgi.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4
To:     "Andi Kleen" <ak@suse.de>
cc:     Thomas Graichen <graichen@innominate.de>,
        thomas.graichen@innominate.de, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: nfs fix for test5 
In-Reply-To: Message from "Andi Kleen" <ak@suse.de> 
   of "Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:22:43 +0200." <20000927162243.A6081@gruyere.muc.suse.de> 
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:31:11 -0500
From:   Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>
X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-xfs-outgoing

> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:18:48PM +0000, Thomas Graichen wrote:
> > Index: write.c
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvs/linux-2.4-xfs/linux/fs/nfs/write.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.18
> > diff -u -r1.18 write.c
> > --- write.c	2000/06/02 00:22:59	1.18
> > +++ write.c	2000/09/27 14:06:28
> > @@ -1294,7 +1294,7 @@
> >  	struct nfs_page		*req;
> >  	struct dentry		*dentry;
> >  	struct inode		*inode;
> > -	loff_t			start, end, len;
> > +	u64			start, end, len;
> 
> Looks bogus, loff_t is already 64bits. 
> 
> 
> -Andi

And I am still waiting for the coffee to kick in, but Andi is correct, this 
is already 64 bits, but it is signed, so there may be something in the change,
was there any commentry with the original change?

Steve

p.s. Thomas, looks like I will be in Miami after all.