On 7/29/24 16:27, enh wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 3:51 PM Rob Landley wrote:
>> On 7/23/24 14:55, enh via Toybox wrote:
>> > Fixes https://github.com/landley/toybox/issues/512.
>>
>> Applied, but could you email me the tarball for the tar "ownership" test that
>> produces the 2d7b hash? I'm g
oh, and the unconcluded thought in the commit message is "...but it
seems unreasonable to add a test that requires > 2GiB of disk space,
so i haven't included a new test in this patch".
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 4:09 PM enh wrote:
>
> this is actually a regression in Android V, since the change to
this is actually a regression in Android V, since the change to enable
the use of copy_file_range(2) went in too late for U, so i'm sending
this minimal fix that i can cherrypick to Android V (since regular
AOSP changes won't make it to V at this point).
that said... there's a separate cosmetic is
We want to check whether the next call we make will try to send more
than 1<<30 bytes, not whether the total number of bytes to transfer is
more than that.
Interestingly, the read() fallback implementation already has the right
check, presumably because files larger than libbuf are commonplace,
wh
ping?
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 8:48 AM enh wrote:
>
> ping?
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 7:52 PM Rob Landley wrote:
> >
> > On 7/26/24 07:13, enh via Toybox wrote:
> > >> Don't know Rob cares about this, but ?: is not ISO C. It's a GNU
> > >> extension.
> >
> > Specifically https://gcc.gnu.org/onl
