Re: [PATCH] 2.4.19 revert block_llseek behavior to standard
Phil Auld (pauld@egenera.com)
Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:36:32 -0400
Rumor has it that on Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 05:20:57PM +0100 Alan Cox said:
> On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 17:06, Phil Auld wrote:
> > Hi Al,
> > I think this falls under the VFS umbrella, but I may be wrong.
> >
> > Below is a fix to make block_llseek behave as specified in the Single Unix Spec. v3.
> > (http://www.unix-systems.org/single_unix_specification/). It's extremely trivial but
> > may have political baggage.
>
> Political I don't see any. Technical - have you verified each of our
> block drivers behaves correctly when given an offset over its side, and
> that it correctly fails on a 32bit block wrap.
>
No, but how did it work prior to 2.4.11?
> I suspect we should still fail it with the allowed error code to be safe
> in 2.4
I may be missing something. How does tying a return of EINVAL to the size
necessarily imply the resulting offset will be negative? There is already
an explicit test for that.
--
Philip R. Auld, Ph.D. Technical Staff
Egenera Corp. pauld@egenera.com
165 Forest St., Marlboro, MA 01752 (508)858-2600
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/