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@xxxxxxxxxx - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -
--
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
