[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: proc_file_read() hack?
Unfortunately, your method #3 conflicts with methods #0 through #2,
which exhaust the range of possible values that may be returned
in *start. Any value greater than buffer is regarded as being
"within the buffer".

Introducing method #1 was a bad idea because this hack made it
impossible cleanly to implement what you suggest.

Thomas Hood

On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 13:18, Todd Inglett wrote:
> How about applying my trivial patch and then adding this to your nice
> comment?
> 3) Set *start = an address outside the buffer.
> Put the data of the requested offset at *start.
> Return the number of bytes of data placed there.
> If this number is greater than zero and you
> didn't signal eof and the reader is prepared to
> take more data you will be called again with the
> requested offset advanced by the number ob tyes
> absorbed.
> The code should still work with the other cases now that the hack is
> fixed. Of course, rather than add 3), it would be better to re-word 2)
> (e.g. "Set *start = address of the buffer which may or may not be in the
> given buffer.).
> There are cases where the data is available and need not be copied. My
> code got simpler when I got rid of the need to copy my data around.

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 13:25    [W:0.090 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site