Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:22:14 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: "Wu, Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
       Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
       Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
       David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
       "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] vfs: introduce FMODE_NEG_OFFSET for allowing
 negative f_pos
Message-Id: <20100118122214.1d13a3e4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <6CADD16F56BC954D8E28F3836FA7ED7112A9CD50F6@shzsmsx501.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <20100115013954.311049665@intel.com>
	<20100115014422.959401729@intel.com>
	<87bpgurz00.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
	<20100118091527.7a0e2c6e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<87y6jwnrcz.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
	<20100118102544.3e897525.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<87pr58kx9o.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
	<20100118110019.c55ad88a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<87y6jwjh3j.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
	<20100118113026.4c6efd26.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<6CADD16F56BC954D8E28F3836FA7ED7112A9CD50F6@shzsmsx501.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1186
Lines: 35

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:15:38 +0800
"Wu, Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> [replying from webmail, sorry for top-posting]
> 
> memory_lseek() calls force_successful_syscall_return() to force success on negative vals.
> However that is a no-op for x86.
> 
> My experiment shows that lseek() does return negative pos. However,
> manual says that "a value of (off_t) -1 is returned" on error. So it's OK
> as long as your program is written as "err == -1" instead of "err < 0".
> 
On error, the kernel returns -EOVERFLOW (via %eax) and libc hides
it by
  errno = EOVERFLOW
  ret = -1

The problem discussed here is the kernel's return value. So, the kernel's
lseek should check that, I think.

Anyway, this lseek problem is not related to this patch itself and has
existed for very long time. Fixing it later by another patch is not very
bad, I think.
(I'm sorry I myself is not ready for writing a patch...)

Thaks,
-Kame

--
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/