Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 20:12:13 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] posix_fallocate support removed from ZFS, lld affected Message-ID: <153bfe2b-e65e-2036-3391-984c6ba00ffe@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1509989176.99235.79.camel@freebsd.org> References: <7e5599e4-2faa-29b6-4fb2-a0744a12681a@FreeBSD.org> <1509989176.99235.79.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/11/2017 19:26, 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 am afraid that this is true. > I think that will be a big problem for the ports team's package > building process, and for anyone using poudriere. I hope that lld is not that widely used now. But I admit that I put the cart before the horse. I didn't expect that posix_fallocate is used in the development toolchain and I didn't try to check for it. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?153bfe2b-e65e-2036-3391-984c6ba00ffe>