[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201007081502.37133.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:02:36 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] spufs: use llseek in all file operations
On Thursday 08 July 2010, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> > @@ -2151,7 +2166,7 @@ static ssize_t spufs_ibox_info_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
> > static const struct file_operations spufs_ibox_info_fops = {
> > .open = spufs_info_open,
> > .read = spufs_ibox_info_read,
> > - .llseek = generic_file_llseek,
> > + .llseek = no_llseek,
> > };
> >
> > static ssize_t __spufs_wbox_info_read(struct spu_context *ctx,
> > @@ -2194,7 +2209,7 @@ static ssize_t spufs_wbox_info_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
> > static const struct file_operations spufs_wbox_info_fops = {
> > .open = spufs_info_open,
> > .read = spufs_wbox_info_read,
> > - .llseek = generic_file_llseek,
> > + .llseek = no_llseek,
> > };
> >
>
> Why the change in behaviour for the mbox info files?
>
D'oh, that wasn't intentional. I guess what must have happened is that I first
added generic_file_llseek to all file_operations in spufs and then made up my
mind and chose what I thought was correct in each case, which broke these.
Of course, these *_info_fops should be seekable.
Arnd
--
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