[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180810060341epcms5p4e8defed12cf0adeccd4d8d1e3c93c6b3@epcms5p4>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:33:41 +0530
From: Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "shuahkh@....samsung.com" <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
PANKAJ MISHRA <pankaj.m@...sung.com>,
AMIT SAHRAWAT <a.sahrawat@...sung.com>,
Vaneet Narang <v.narang@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] selftest/net: fix FILE_SIZE for 32 bit
architecture.
>> >
>> >What about using more conventional size_t instead of "unsigned long long" ?
>>
>> size_t is also equivalent to unsigned long and it will not hold value of (1 << 35) for 32 bit system.
>> So we can do two things.
>
>Wouldn't the 'correct' type be off_t ?
>In any case, IIRC, you have to do really horrid things in Linux to
>access files larger than 2G on 32bit systems.
>
> David
Any inputs.
Thanks,
Maninder Singh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists