On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 12:38:55PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> ...
> > In fact, almost all filesystems do this at some point. ext2 does it for
> > directories too, for some very similar reasons that isofs does. See
> > fs/ext2/dir.c:
> >
> > b
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 12:38:55PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
> In fact, almost all filesystems do this at some point. ext2 does it for
> directories too, for some very similar reasons that isofs does. See
> fs/ext2/dir.c:
>
> blk = (filp->f_pos) >> EXT2_BLOCK_SIZE_BITS(sb);
>
> (an
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> I am actually not sure if the normal kernel contains even a variable
> width long long shift.
Sure it does. The isofs code contains exctly that:
block = filp->f_pos >> bufbits;
In fact, almost all filesystems do this at some point. ext2 does
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 08:59:46AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ Btw, I noticed that one of my machines _does_ have gcc-2.95.2, so I can
> look at the isofs code generation myself. I don't see anything obvious,
> and the code is hairy. The differences between 2.91.66 and 2.95.2 are
> big
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Can you check whether the single patch of _just_ removing the extra "f_pos
> >= i_size" test in do_isofs_readdir() fixes it? The other changes of
> Andries patch look like they should not affect code generation at all, but
> I'd sti
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> To tie two threads together again: the thread about FS corruption is one
> of my main worries right now. Do people who see this happen to use a gcc
> other than egcs-2.91.66? I know Andries apparently has 2.95.2, and he's
> one of the people who have re
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Ragnar Hojland Espinosa wrote:
>
> Yup, indeed it solves the dir/namei problem.
Can you check whether the single patch of _just_ removing the extra "f_pos
>= i_size" test in do_isofs_readdir() fixes it? The other changes of
Andries patch look like they should not affect
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 04:50:22AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Below a working patch for which the isofs images I got
> all are OK. (There is still a lot of silliness here -
> superfluous parentheses, a rename of isofs_cmp to isofs_comp
> in one file to avoid confusion with the isofs_cmp in
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 07:37:27AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I have seen that there were discussions on the right compiler to use.
> > Is 2.95.2 wrong? Have other things to do tomorrow, so it will be
> > 24 hours before I can look at this again.
>
> 2.95.2 should have been reasonably ok, b
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I never read assembler, but looking at the code produced
> by gcc (2.95.2) it seemed peculiar, maybe an attempt to
> optimize something combining the
> if (filp->f_pos >= inode->i_size)
> with the
> while (filp->f_pos < inode->i_size)
10 matches
Mail list logo
