Jakub Jelinek wrote:
is what glibc does ATM. Seems we violate the case where len == 0, as EINVAL in that case is "shall fail". But reading the standard to imply negative len is ok is too much guessing, there is no word what it means when len is negative and "required storage for regular file data starting at offset and continuing for len bytes"doesn't make sense for negative size.
This wording has already been cleaned up. The current draft for the next revision reads:
[EINVAL] The len argument is less than or equal to zero, or the offset argument is less than zero, or the underlying file system does not support this operation.I still don't like it since len==0 shouldn't create an error (it's inconsistent) but len<0 is already outlawed.
-- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call
- From: "Amit K. Arora" <[email protected]>
- Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call
- From: Andreas Dilger <[email protected]>
- Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call
- From: "Amit K. Arora" <[email protected]>
- Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call
- From: Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]>
- Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call
- From: "Amit K. Arora" <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call
- From: "Amit K. Arora" <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
- From: "Amit K. Arora" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
- From: David Chinner <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
- From: Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]>
- Re: Interface for the new fallocate() system call
- Prev by Date: Re: fragmentation avoidance Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans
- Next by Date: Re: [-mm patch] fix fs/nfs/nfsroot.c compile error
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc
- Index(es):
 |