Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1720913 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-27 21:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-08-29 12:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Kernels v4.9+ cause short reads of block devices Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-08-27 21:50 +0200
Re: Kernels v4.9+ cause short reads of block devices Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com> - 2017-08-27 22:00 +0200
Re: Kernels v4.9+ cause short reads of block devices Doug Nazar <nazard@nazar.ca> - 2017-08-29 12:50 +0200
| From | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 21:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Kernels v4.9+ cause short reads of block devices |
| Message-ID | <ujbJf-3FY-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> 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.
Linus
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ujbSV-3Kt-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1720913 |
On 08/27/2017 02:47 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> 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 >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Nazar <nazard@nazar.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 12:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ujMfL-1wY-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1720913 |
On 8/27/17 3:47 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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. Not a problem... I got caught trying to find out why 4.13 hangs on a warm reset. It has really slowed down my testing having towalk couple of floors for every reboot. Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web