Re: ramfs lfs limit

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:41:12AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 09:37:02AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > this fixes the 2G limit on ramfs
> > 
> > --- sles/fs/ramfs/inode.c.~1~	2003-10-31 05:54:29.000000000 +0100
> > +++ sles/fs/ramfs/inode.c	2004-05-21 07:55:07.394369104 +0200
> > @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ static int ramfs_fill_super(struct super
> >  	struct inode * inode;
> >  	struct dentry * root;
> >  
> > +	sb->s_maxbytes = MAX_LFS_FILESIZE;
> 
> 
> Why don't we change the default in alloc_super() instead?
> 
> We should not default to "lame" :)

we default to "lame" to protect the lame filesystems from
malfunctioning ;), this was extremely intentional in the early days, now
less but it's still intentional. We may change that someday but
defaulting to safe when there's no downside doesn't sound that urgent to
change.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/