Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S318737AbSHLQdH>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:33:07 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S318739AbSHLQdH>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:33:07 -0400
Received: from hercules.egenera.com ([208.254.46.135]:64524 "HELO
	coyote.egenera.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id <S318737AbSHLQdG>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:33:06 -0400
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:36:32 -0400
From: Phil Auld <pauld@egenera.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: viro@math.psu.edu, marcelo@connectiva.com.br, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.19 revert block_llseek behavior to standard
Message-ID: <20020812123632.E27650@vienna.EGENERA.COM>
References: <20020812120659.B27650@vienna.EGENERA.COM> <1029169257.16424.176.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <1029169257.16424.176.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk>; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 05:20:57PM +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1337
Lines: 33

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/