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. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
