[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87fwqn1gsv.wl%karma@galois.botik.ru>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:49:20 +0300
From: Alexey Mikhailov <karma@...ois.botik.ru>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: lseek() on debugfs entries in 2.6.37
At Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:01:41 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Hello!
>
> On Tuesday 15 March 2011, Alexey Mikhailov wrote:
> > I use simple debugfs entries for user-space <-> kernel-space
> > interaction. Basically I read unsigned integers from debugfs
> > files like this:
> >
> > ...
> > char buf[64];
> > lseek(timesync_fd, 0, SEEK_SET);
> > read(timesync_fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
> > ...
> >
> > It works perfectly with 2.6.32 kernel. But with 2.6.37 kernel,
> > lseek() fails with errno=29(Illegal seek). So second read()
> > call just fails or returns garbage. Can someone please shed
> > some light on it?
>
> This is probably a result of the changes I made as part of the
> BKL removal. Which file specifically are you talking about?
>
> In older kernels, having no .llseek function meant that you
> implicitly get default_llseek. New kernels now require
> that the driver explicitly chooses one llseek variant.
Thank you for reply. Obvious patches like this one fixed it
static struct file_operations fops_timesync = {
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
.open = fop_open_timesync,
.read = fop_read_timesync,
+ .llseek = default_llseek,
};
I assume there is the reason you need to specify this
explicitly as it will break much out-of-kernel code.
-- Alexey
--
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