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)
After Linus' recent changes there were many complaints
about bugs in the isofs handling. Still, his code is fine.
I know about some things that still need to be done, and
already corrected two flaws yesterday or so, but people
sent me their isofs images and their problem was not caused
by anything
11 matches
Mail list logo
