On 7/23/22 05:17, Pádraig Brady wrote:

> BTW I see we've code in cache_fstatat() that assumes
> st_size can't have such large values, which contradicts a bit.

Good catch. I installed the first attached patch.


 > This is only a real consideration for virtual files I think
 > since off_t is signed, and so impractical for a real file system
 > to support files > OFF_T_MAX.

Yes, that sounds right.

You've convinced me that 'ls' should switch to the way 'stat' behaves 
rather than vice versa; that's more useful anyway. How about the 
attached second patch, which I haven't installed? (I was actually 
inclined this way originally but got lazy.)