Re: [PATCH][RFC] Re: 2.4.15-pre5: /proc/cpuinfo broken

[Alexander Viro]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > Frankly, I'd prefer to try (b) before reverting to (a).  Patch doing that
> > variant follows.  Linus, your opinion?
> 
> (d) make seq_file have my originally suggested "subposition" code.
> 
> Ie make the X low bits of "pos" be the position in the record, with the
> high bits of "pos" being the current "record index" kind of thing.
> 
> That makes lseek() happy.

It will not help.  lseek() in question is relative and crosses the
record boundary.  I.e. we have

	n = read(fd, buf, ...);
	/* process k bytes */
	lseek(fd, k-n, SEEK_CUR);

and that will break just as the current variant does.  It's not about
seek to remembered position - it's a relative seek to calculated offset.
Calculated from number of bytes returned by read().