[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC] Re: 2.4.15-pre5: /proc/cpuinfo broken

On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > Frankly, I'd prefer to try (b) before reverting to (a). Patch doing that
> > variant follows. Linus, your opinion?
> (d) make seq_file have my originally suggested "subposition" code.
> Ie make the X low bits of "pos" be the position in the record, with the
> high bits of "pos" being the current "record index" kind of thing.
> That makes lseek() happy.

It will not help. lseek() in question is relative and crosses the
record boundary. I.e. we have

n = read(fd, buf, ...);
/* process k bytes */
lseek(fd, k-n, SEEK_CUR);

and that will break just as the current variant does. It's not about
seek to remembered position - it's a relative seek to calculated offset.
Calculated from number of bytes returned by read().

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.100 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site