On 2/7/06, Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> So I got to thinking, why not just have svn_io_file_open tack it on to
> flags all the time, just like we do with APR_BINARY
In July 2005, Bryn Davies wrote a similar patch, which also updates
our test suite with APR_LARGEFILE flags. Please see
http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-06/0414.shtml and check whether
any of his additional changes should be included in your patch.
Also: Perhaps it'd be a good idea to conditionalize your patch to only
affect APR 1.x and later? If we add this flag for APR 0.9.x, I suspect
that FSFS might happily create files over 2GB, but then corrupt them.
Read what Greg Hudson said below.
On May 31, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 11:18 -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > In any case: I'm wondering if we should be passing APR_LARGEFILE to
> > all apr_file_io calls. Is it necessary? Should we expect problems
> > if we don't?
> Passing APR_LARGEFILE does not magically change the size of apr_off_t;
> it does not gain us the ability to seek around in >2GB files. It's
> essentially a promise to APR that we don't need to seek, so it's okay to
> go above the 2GB limit.
>
> However, we most definitely do need to seek around in FSFS rev files,
> which are the most common thing to go above 2GB. APR_LARGEFILE won't
> help us for that case.
Source: http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2005-05/1412.shtml
Cheers,
David
--
David James -- http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~james
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Feb 8 07:24:53 2006