PVR (Personal Video Recorder) for QNX

bridged with qdn.cafe
Bill Caroselli

Re: PVR (Personal Video Recorder) for QNX

Post by Bill Caroselli » Mon Sep 08, 2003 3:24 pm

Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> wrote:
The original point was that QNX wasn't supporting files over 2G, and I hope
the reason why is NOT because someone as QSSL thinks if you need to handle
files over 2Gig then that means you don't need a "normal FS" but a custom
one ;-)
CM > Nah. AFAIK, libc supports it (64bit file offsets and the like). It just
CM > requires a new fs.

Would it take much effort to just take the existing QNX4 file system
and make the offsets 64 bits?

I'm guessing not. And it would make a lot of people happy.

Chris McKillop

Re: PVR (Personal Video Recorder) for QNX

Post by Chris McKillop » Mon Sep 08, 2003 3:28 pm

;-) That makes me wonder, if a program open /dev/hd0.0t78 for example and
perform read/write on it, does that goes through the cache ? I would think
not but just checking.
I will let John make any comments on this subject. I really don't know.
There might be a low-level block cache for reads.
The original point was that QNX wasn't supporting files over 2G, and I hope
the reason why is NOT because someone as QSSL thinks if you need to handle
files over 2Gig then that means you don't need a "normal FS" but a custom
one ;-)
Nah. AFAIK, libc supports it (64bit file offsets and the like). It just
requires a new fs.

chris

--
Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> "The faster I go, the behinder I get."
Software Engineer, QSSL -- Lewis Carroll --
http://qnx.wox.org/

Chris McKillop

Re: PVR (Personal Video Recorder) for QNX

Post by Chris McKillop » Mon Sep 08, 2003 9:56 pm

Bill Caroselli <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote:
Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> wrote:


The original point was that QNX wasn't supporting files over 2G, and I hope
the reason why is NOT because someone as QSSL thinks if you need to handle
files over 2Gig then that means you don't need a "normal FS" but a custom
one ;-)


CM > Nah. AFAIK, libc supports it (64bit file offsets and the like). It just
CM > requires a new fs.

Would it take much effort to just take the existing QNX4 file system
and make the offsets 64 bits?

I'm guessing not. And it would make a lot of people happy.
Again, I don't really know the internals and will let others comment on any
technical aspects (rather then business ones <grin>).

chris

--
Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> "The faster I go, the behinder I get."
Software Engineer, QSSL -- Lewis Carroll --
http://qnx.wox.org/

Guest

Re: PVR (Personal Video Recorder) for QNX

Post by Guest » Tue Sep 09, 2003 2:04 am

qtps@earthlink.net sed in <bji702$h8b$1@inn.qnx.com>:
Would it take much effort to just take the existing QNX4 file system
and make the offsets 64 bits?
AFAIK qnx4 fs has only 32bits in the inode for file length,
so yes extending it will be helluva effort, and
result won't be a qnx4 fs (qnx6 fs?)

If you have the source for fs-qnx4.so maybe it's a cheesecake
to just redefine&recompile...
--
kabe

Bill Caroselli

Re: PVR (Personal Video Recorder) for QNX

Post by Bill Caroselli » Tue Sep 09, 2003 12:47 pm

kabe@sra-tohoku.co.jp wrote:
kstcj > qtps@earthlink.net sed in <bji702$h8b$1@inn.qnx.com>:
Would it take much effort to just take the existing QNX4 file system
and make the offsets 64 bits?
kstcj > AFAIK qnx4 fs has only 32bits in the inode for file length,
kstcj > so yes extending it will be helluva effort, and
kstcj > result won't be a qnx4 fs (qnx6 fs?)

kstcj > If you have the source for fs-qnx4.so maybe it's a cheesecake
kstcj > to just redefine&recompile...
kstcj > --
kstcj > kabe

Agreed. It would no longer be a QNX4 fs.

Also agreed, Just re-define and recompile.

Post Reply

Return to “qdn.cafe”