On Tue, Feb 24, 1998 at 10:08:55AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > For example, just to take the simplest example: when people say that
> > they want 64 bit support, do they mean:
> >
> > * support for sparse files greater than 2GB?
> > * support for files which contain greater than 2**42 bytes of
> > data
>
> This one would be sufficient.
>
> > * support for large files that can be mmap'ed, or just read?
>
> Reading is enough. Usually, noone tries to mmap such files. (I know,
> it gets a bit messy...)
I mmap() large files all the time under Digital Unix, so people do do
such things.
One thing I want to add to this discussion is that I think it is important
for Linux to support as much 64 bit capability on 64 bit hardware as
possible. Providing 64 bit capability on 32 bit hardware is a more
difficult, and can be expected to take longer. However, it makes
Linux look bad when Linux/Alpha or Linux/Ultrasparc can't deal with
files larger than 2G.
Just my $0.02,
Jim
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Nance Avant! Corporation
(919) 941-6655 Do you have sweet iced tea? jim_nance@avanticorp.com
No, but theres sugar on the table.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu