[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091120171107.GZ21750@bolzano.suse.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:11:07 +0100
From: Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linux-Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, jkacur@...hat.com,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] Introduce noop_llseek()
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.
Regards,
Jan
--
Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists