On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 08:03:58PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On Thursday 12 June 2014 09:40 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 10:53:29AM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote: > >> Ping ^ 2 > >> > >> On Tuesday 04 February 2014 10:02 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > >>> Ping ! > >>> > >>> On Thursday 09 January 2014 03:05 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > >>>> commit 00571b43df2e "libc: posix_fadvise: restore implementation for > >>>> xtensa" > >>>> enabled posix_fadvise() for all arches (it was just not generated > >>>> before). > >>>> > >>>> However this also unearthed an issue introduced by ee84b8b400 > >>>> "linux: posix_fadvise: use new SYSCALL_ALIGN_64BIT" which is to > >>>> referencing LFS'ish code (off64_t) w/o proper checks which causes build > >>>> to break for !LFS. > >>>> > >>>> Fix this by calling posix_fadvise64() only for LFS case and open-code > >>>> it's equivalent for !LFS. > > > > I do not like the open-coding, can we avoid it? > > I don't like it too however I don't see how it will work. W/o LFS we can't > call > any *64 stuff. > > > I.e. let the __NR_fadvise64_64 based impl live in posix_fadvise64.c, > > __WORDSIZE == 64 ? > > I don't think I understand. > > 1. My patch doesn't touch wordsize == 64 case, it handles the size 32 case. > 2. I agree that current code is open coding posix_fadvise64 inside > posix_fadvise, > but I don't know a better way of doing it - ideas / suggestions welcome !
We can revisit this later. Applied this one for now, thanks! _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
