Re: why is lseek broken (>= 2.4.11) ?

[Andrew Morton]

Phil Auld wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> There was a brief thread a couple of months ago about the change in
> lseek for block devices. The thread is here:
> 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=102406030100003&r=1&w=2
> 
> The change, which looks to have come in with 2.4.11, returns
> EINVAL from an lseek on a block device attempting to set pos past
> the size of the device.
> 
> This causes current versions glibc to exhibit non-SUS3 lseek behavior.
> 
> Are there plans to revert this? It seems that this is something that
> should be addressed in glibc first and then have the kernel change.
> 
> There is no resolution in the thread above, nor is there any
> justification for the change. It just peters out.

What should the behaviour be?   The lseek should succeed,
but subsequent reads and writes return zero?