From: Baruch Siach Subject: Re: [PATCH] e4defrag: fix build when posix_fadvise is missing Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 19:31:46 +0200 Message-ID: <20140101173146.GM4470@tarshish> References: <33245e3808058c72b66931ac14aea8d5dc6d1ba5.1388572103.git.baruch@tkos.co.il> <20140101172205.GC17519@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Ts'o Return-path: Received: from guitar.tcltek.co.il ([192.115.133.116]:43443 "EHLO mx.tkos.co.il" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754184AbaAARbu (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jan 2014 12:31:50 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140101172205.GC17519@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Ted, On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 12:22:05PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 12:28:23PM +0200, Baruch Siach wrote: > > uClibc declares posix_fadvise() even when the architecture does not provide > > one. The static posix_fadvise() signature is not compatible with POSIX. Rename > > the internal implementation to fix this. > > If the architecture doesn't provide posix_fadvise(), does that imply > that __NR_fadvise64_64 also doesn't exist? > > Or do you mean that for some reason, uClibc is not providing > posix_fadvise on all architectures, even though the kernel supports it? > > That seems wierd. The xtensa architecture has __NR_fadvise64_64 but not __NR_fadvise64. Should I clarify this in the commit log? baruch -- http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - baruch@tkos.co.il - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -