Re: [HEADS UP] posix_fallocate support removed from ZFS, lld affected

2017-11-16 Thread Andriy Gapon
On 13/11/2017 17:02, Ed Maste wrote: > On 7 November 2017 at 13:12, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >> I hope that lld is not that widely used now. >> But I admit that I put the cart before the horse. >> I didn't expect that posix_fallocate is used in the development toolchain >> and I

Re: [HEADS UP] posix_fallocate support removed from ZFS, lld affected

2017-11-13 Thread Ed Maste
On 7 November 2017 at 13:12, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > I hope that lld is not that widely used now. > But I admit that I put the cart before the horse. > I didn't expect that posix_fallocate is used in the development toolchain and > I > didn't try to check for it. For amd64 it

Re: [HEADS UP] posix_fallocate support removed from ZFS, lld affected

2017-11-07 Thread Andriy Gapon
On 06/11/2017 19:26, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 17:40 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> From UPDATING: >> The naive and non-compliant support of posix_fallocate(2) in ZFS >> has been removed as of r325320.  The system call now returns EINVAL >> when used on a ZFS file.  Although the new

Re: [HEADS UP] posix_fallocate support removed from ZFS, lld affected

2017-11-06 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:43:42AM -0700, Ed Maste wrote: > On 6 November 2017 at 10:56, Ian Lepore wrote: > > > > Oh, right. lld != ld. > > Indeed, but this will be a problem for the arm64 package builds if > they use ZFS and an 11.x userland on a new kernel. We probably need

Re: [HEADS UP] posix_fallocate support removed from ZFS, lld affected

2017-11-06 Thread Ed Maste
On 6 November 2017 at 10:56, Ian Lepore wrote: > > Oh, right. lld != ld. Indeed, but this will be a problem for the arm64 package builds if they use ZFS and an 11.x userland on a new kernel. We probably need to bring the lld change in as an errata.

Re: [HEADS UP] posix_fallocate support removed from ZFS, lld affected

2017-11-06 Thread Ian Lepore
On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 12:49 -0500, Allan Jude wrote: > On 2017-11-06 12:26, Ian Lepore wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 17:40 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > > > > > From UPDATING: > > > The naive and non-compliant support of posix_fallocate(2) in ZFS > > > has been removed as of r325320.  

Re: [HEADS UP] posix_fallocate support removed from ZFS, lld affected

2017-11-06 Thread Allan Jude
On 2017-11-06 12:26, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 17:40 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> From UPDATING: >> The naive and non-compliant support of posix_fallocate(2) in ZFS >> has been removed as of r325320.  The system call now returns EINVAL >> when used on a ZFS file.  Although the new

Re: [HEADS UP] posix_fallocate support removed from ZFS, lld affected

2017-11-06 Thread Ian Lepore
On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 17:40 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > From UPDATING: > The naive and non-compliant support of posix_fallocate(2) in ZFS > has been removed as of r325320.  The system call now returns EINVAL > when used on a ZFS file.  Although the new behavior complies with the > standard, some

[HEADS UP] posix_fallocate support removed from ZFS, lld affected

2017-11-06 Thread Andriy Gapon
>From UPDATING: The naive and non-compliant support of posix_fallocate(2) in ZFS has been removed as of r325320. The system call now returns EINVAL when used on a ZFS file. Although the new behavior complies with the standard, some consumers are not prepared to cope with it. One known victim is