Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 10:56:37 -0700 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] posix_fallocate support removed from ZFS, lld affected Message-ID: <1509990997.99235.92.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <65d93f93-31d9-0caa-d1b2-4ed21e90df21@freebsd.org> References: <7e5599e4-2faa-29b6-4fb2-a0744a12681a@FreeBSD.org> <1509989176.99235.79.camel@freebsd.org> <65d93f93-31d9-0caa-d1b2-4ed21e90df21@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. 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 lld prior to r325420. > > > > > It just popped into my head... does this mean that kernels running > > r325320+ on systems using ZFS will be unable to host build jails for > > earlier versions / branches because lld will fail in the jail? > > > > I think that will be a big problem for the ports team's package > > building process, and for anyone using poudriere. > > > > -- Ian > > > lld is not the default on amd64 yet. So only people who have set the > src.conf knob, or are building a platform like aarch64 that uses lld by > default, would be impacted. > Oh, right. lld != ld. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1509990997.99235.92.camel>