Re: llseek and 64 bit return...

Linda Walsh (law@sgi.com)
Mon, 24 Apr 2000 10:41:23 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Philip Blundell: "kern_addr_valid"
Previous message: Russell King: "Re: patch: signed char issues"
Maybe in reply to: Linda Walsh: "llseek and 64 bit return..."

Matti Aarnio wrote:
> > Ahh...um... it is lseek that returns an actual 'offset' value, llseek only
> > returns 0 or error code. So...then I ask what would the implications (in a future
> > development release) of changing lseek to return 64 bits on intel.
>
> Use lseek64() and be happy.
> On intel linux it is implemented at glibc by means of llseek(),
> but that is then a side issue.

---
	Is there some good reason why the interface shouldn't be cleaned up
on Intel?  Seems like it would be much more maintainable, less ugly -- rather than
have various user-land kludges that take advantage of extra kernel calls. Wouldn't
it be more straightforward to have lseek return a 64 bit value on ia32 (et al. 32
bit platforms) as it does on the 'big machines'?  Seems like it could result
in simpler glib code as well...

	I mean -- it's not that big of an issue to me, but the change is trivial
the kernel side.  Then we can list the alternate 64 bit kludges as 'deprecated'
and some day not worry about them at all...(?)  It just seem like a cleaner
implementation for the future...  I just figured if there's a 64-bit ia32
kernel call interface, why not use it?

-l

-- 
Linda A Walsh                    | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI
law@sgi.com                      | Voice: (650) 933-5338

-
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.tux.org/lkml/






 Next message: Philip Blundell: "kern_addr_valid"
 Previous message: Russell King: "Re: patch: signed char issues"
 Maybe in reply to: Linda Walsh: "llseek and 64 bit return..."