Hi Ted,
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 12:37:44PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 07:31:46PM +0200, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> Is uClibc providing a posix_fadvise64()?
Yes. uClibc does provide posix_fadvise64() when __NR_fadvise64_64 is
available.
> Maybe the better fix would be to try to use posix_fadvise64 if it is exists,
> with posix_fadvise() and the locally defined posix_fadvise() as fallbacks.
OK. So you suggest to add another autoconf test for posix_fadvise64 and use
that as a fall back before trying direct syscall()?
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
