Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:47:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:47:20 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:55304 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:47:20 -0400 Message-ID: <3D542AAE.64B70B55@zip.com.au> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 13:48:47 -0700 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.19-rc3 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Auld CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: why is lseek broken (>= 2.4.11) ? References: <20020809084915.P3542@vienna.EGENERA.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1059 Lines: 28 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? - 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/