Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
32-bit fixes for verity.go - #49
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #49 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 38.59% 38.59% =======================================
Files 24 24 Lines 2257 2257 =======================================
Hits 871 871 Misses 1208 1208 Partials 178 178 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
mikemccracken
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for this PR, this seems fine to me, as you mentioned it should have no impact on 64-bit.
I'm curious what your use case for atomfs on a 32 bit platform is, if you can share your plans let me know!
ysangkok
commented
Aug 28, 2025
I want to run some containers in v86, which is a browser-based CPU emulator. But it only supports 32-bits. So I am looking at images such as the ones from the i386 user on Docker Hub. And I am looking at Stacker because I've seen it has EROFS and SquashFS support. It would be nice to be able to mount giant images without loading all of them into memory. If I used regular tar.gz images, I think I'd be forced to download the whole image and unpack it, which seems unnecessary. |
ysangkok
commented
Aug 28, 2025
I force pushed because I see the commit message format wasn't right. |
raharper
commented
Aug 28, 2025
Thanks, workflows are re-running. DCO check has failed; you'll need to read/understand the DCO And then amend your commit with your |
raharper
commented
Aug 30, 2025
Sorry for the trouble, the DCO bot compared[1] the The error looks like this: it expected: |
This is necessary for 32-bit platforms. Compiled on i386 Signed-off-by: Janus Troelsen <ysangkok@gmail.com>
ysangkok
commented
Aug 30, 2025
Ok, I have added LastName. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
raharper
commented
Aug 31, 2025
Thank you @ysangkok for the contribution! |
It seems that these variables are not ulongs, but actually uint64_t. On 32-bit platforms, a ulong is only 32 bits wide. So before this patch, this file wouldn't compile on i386. For amd64, this patch should make no difference, since uint64_t and ulong are the same.
There are also issues in superblock.go, but these issues are different, so I will patch them separately.