Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756123AbZKUQ4e (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:56:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755989AbZKUQ4d (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:56:33 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:52492 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755680AbZKUQ4c (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:56:32 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Jan Blunck Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] Introduce noop_llseek() Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:56:27 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-14-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Jamie Lokier , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Alan Cox , "Linux-Kernel Mailinglist" , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , jkacur@redhat.com, =?iso-8859-1?q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Weisbecker?= , Alexander Viro , Matthew Wilcox References: <1258735245-25826-1-git-send-email-jblunck@suse.de> <20091120170547.GF20634@shareable.org> <20091120171107.GZ21750@bolzano.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20091120171107.GZ21750@bolzano.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200911211756.27596.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18R6QcGGFPthhKKxuFAwjCLk3In/8IQsnXVj57 xhKGUx/8emoRD7CW/kg33IBGd3/7Bv7F/rqpKGE3XeGpt3YHwB 7uhJOCsRfb2R9wt5bvSqg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1192 Lines: 27 On Friday 20 November 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > > Jan Blunck wrote: > > > The noop_llseek() is a llseek() operation that filesystems can use that > > > don't want to support seeking (leave the file->f_pos untouched) but still > > > want to let the syscall itself to succeed. > > > > This is weird behaviour: if you want to allow llseek() to succeed but > > don't really support seeking, why does the device even care about the > > value of file->f_pos? > > The device itself does not care about it but it is userspace that is expecting > the seek to succeed. There is a comment in osst that at least there seems to > be a borken version of tar that wants to seek on the device even it that does > not have any effect. Looking at the question from the other side -- if the device and the user don't care about file->f_pos, what's wrong with calling generic_file_llseek instead of noop_llseek? Arnd <>< -- 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/