>The problem appears to be mixing calls to lseek64 with calls to fread
>and fwrite.
Oh, of course. I didn't see that. You can't use the file descriptor of a
file that is opened as a stream. This test case uses the fileno()
function to mess with the internals of the stream.
fseeko64() is the
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 13:48 -0800, Max wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Shouldn't "fread(&data,sizeof(data),1,f)" and "read(fn, &data,
> sizeof(data))" produce identical results?
> Is it a bug or what?
fseek(f, offset, SEEK_SET);
fread(&data, sizeof(data, 1, f);
should produce identical results to
lseek(fn,
Dave,
Shouldn't "fread(&data,sizeof(data),1,f)" and "read(fn, &data,
sizeof(data))" produce identical results?
Is it a bug or what?
Max
Dave Kleikamp wrote:
With this change, the file size on jfs becomes 2^48 + 4 as expected.
--- jfs_bug.c.orig 2005-03-17 14:18:48.229634648 -0600
+++ jfs_bug
With this change, the file size on jfs becomes 2^48 + 4 as expected.
--- jfs_bug.c.orig 2005-03-17 14:18:48.229634648 -0600
+++ jfs_bug.c 2005-03-17 15:32:45.952750104 -0600
@@ -13,12 +13,14 @@ int data = 0;
struct flock fl;
void read1() {
-size_t rc = fread(&data,sizeof(data),1,f);
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 14:51 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 12:06 -0800, Bryan Henderson wrote:
> > >I found
> > >that for larger values, your test program is returning -1, but unsigned
> > >it appears as 18446744073709551615.
> >
> > You mean you ran it? Then what about the m
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 12:06 -0800, Bryan Henderson wrote:
> >I found
> >that for larger values, your test program is returning -1, but unsigned
> >it appears as 18446744073709551615.
>
> You mean you ran it? Then what about the more interesting question of
> what your filesize ends up to be? Yo
>I found
>that for larger values, your test program is returning -1, but unsigned
>it appears as 18446744073709551615.
You mean you ran it? Then what about the more interesting question of
what your filesize ends up to be? You say JFS allows files up to 2**52
bytes, so I expect the test case w
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:52 -0800, Max wrote:
> Bryan,
>
> I'm not experienced in filesystems. But I've derived the testcase
> program from some buggy application that occasionally created huge
> files on my fs. That was not so easy to reproduce since not every
> sequence of seeks/reads/writes res
Bryan,
I'm not experienced in filesystems. But I've derived the testcase program from
some buggy application that occasionally created huge files on my fs. That was
not so easy to reproduce since not every sequence of seeks/reads/writes results
in a huge file. But finally I got it 100% reproduci
>But anyway it's interesting why the resulting sparse
>files have different size on different fs?
That looks like a bug. Assuming you didn't see any seeks or writes fail,
the file size on all filesystems should be 2^56 + 4. I suspect this is
beyond the maximum file size allowed by the filesys
Thanks for the explanation.
I closed my bugreport as INVALID.
But anyway it's ineteresting why the resulting sparse files have different size
on different fs?
Max
Phillip Lougher wrote:
Max wrote:
Hello!
I've discovered that it is possible to create files of size much
larger than partition size.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:17:52PM -0800, Max wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I've discovered that it is possible to create files of size much larger
> than partition size.
> I thought that this is JFS bug, so I've filed a bugreport against it at
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4345
> Detailed
Max wrote:
Hello!
I've discovered that it is possible to create files of size much larger
than partition size.
I thought that this is JFS bug, so I've filed a bugreport against it at
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4345
Detailed info and testcase program are provided there.
Later I've
Hello!
I've discovered that it is possible to create files of size much larger than
partition size.
I thought that this is JFS bug, so I've filed a bugreport against it at
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4345
Detailed info and testcase program are provided there.
Later I've found that
14 matches
Mail list logo
