[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Ok, making ready for pre-2.4 and code-freeze..
    On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Rogier Wolff wrote:
    > Tigran Aivazian wrote:
    > > > The return code for unix system calls should be defined as "negative"
    > > > for error, and not "-1".
    > >
    > > I beg to differ because lseek(2) has the right to return negative offsets
    > > on some implementations (of UNIX) on some architectures (notably i386).
    > I beg to differ: lseek has no right to return a position before the
    > start of the file.
    > * Upon successful completion, lseek returns the resulting
    > * offset location as measured in bytes from the beginning of
    > * the file.
    > Maybe, some OSes are "breaking the rules" a bit by allowing larger
    > files than a 31-bit return value for lseek(2) allows, but that's their
    > problem.

    Dear Rogier,

    have a look at Stevens' APUE, the page that describes lseek(2) (it is not
    at hand and I can't remember page number) it will tell you which
    particular flavour (AT&T SVR3 or something similar) did that. I definitely
    (but vaguely, 5-6 years ago or so) remember situations where negative
    offsets off /dev/kmem were valid and useful.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.020 / U:84.824 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site