Re: [ILUG] Limits with file sizes??

From: Niall (niall at domain mailtest.inpho.ie)
Date: Thu 17 Feb 2000 - 12:44:53 GMT

Next message: Jakma, Paul: "RE: [ILUG] NIS, libc vs glibc"
Previous message: Lars Hecking: "Re: [ILUG] Tracing a DNS Query"
In reply to: John Allen: "Re: [ILUG] Limits with file sizes??"
Next in thread: John P. Looney: "Re: [ILUG] Limits with file sizes??"
Reply: John P. Looney: "Re: [ILUG] Limits with file sizes??"
Reply: Kenn Humborg: "RE: [ILUG] Limits with file sizes??"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, John Allen wrote:

> > where did the extra bit go ? the value 0x7FFFFFFFUL is hardcoded into the
> > kernel sources for ext2, with no indication as to why this so.
>
> Thats the max signed long, ie. half the max unsigned long.
>
Jeez J. give me a break - I know what it is - I'm wondering why it is !
I've looked in the sources (not very intensively, I admit) and I can't see
why a signed long is used.

Regards,

Niall

Next message: Jakma, Paul: "RE: [ILUG] NIS, libc vs glibc"
Previous message: Lars Hecking: "Re: [ILUG] Tracing a DNS Query"
In reply to: John Allen: "Re: [ILUG] Limits with file sizes??"
Next in thread: John P. Looney: "Re: [ILUG] Limits with file sizes??"
Reply: John P. Looney: "Re: [ILUG] Limits with file sizes??"
Reply: Kenn Humborg: "RE: [ILUG] Limits with file sizes??"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:05:26 GMT