> But you're just guessing. :-)
yes.
> Even with only 32 bits for file size, the size was being reported
> correctly (as an unsigned number >2GB). The 32 bit limit gives you
> a 4GB maximum file size. The 31-bit offset/seek limit means you
> can't practically use that file on a 32-bit system -- but it
> doesn't mean you couldn't use it on a 64-bit system, which has
> 63-bit offsets.
Assuming 4G-1 files are possible (which perhaps they are, can't think
of any real show stoppers except Windows won't grok them) then you
could perhaps access them on alpha/sparc64 and perhaps later on
using llseek/lseek64 on 32-bit platforms too.
> My question (and it was mostly a joke) was whether the FAT32
> filesystem had some other limitation preventing a file from being
> larger than 2GB. I think the answer is no, since I was able to
> create a >2GB file without corruption.
sounds reasonable.
I'm still not sure why it would be useful, FAT is a terrible
filesystem to say the least... its only redeeming features is perhaps
the dos/windows/nt can read/write it, but they won't understand >2gb
files anyhow....
-cw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html