Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 08:57:04 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: gljennjohn@gmail.com, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: "freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: RFC: should lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) return ENOTTY? Message-ID: <fe075daa384006c2056bb844cbccb6454c56fc3b.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20190811090405.50cc49b1@ernst.home> References: <YTBPR01MB3616B6F068199B6A3329432CDDD00@YTBPR01MB3616.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <20190811090405.50cc49b1@ernst.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 09:04 +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 02:03:10 +0000 > Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I've noticed that, if you do a lseek(SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE) on a file > > that > > resides in a file system that does not support holes, ENOTTY is > > returned. > > > > This error isn't listed for lseek() and seems a liitle weird. > > > > ENOTTY is the standard error return for an unimplemented ioctl(2), > and SEEK_HOLE ultimately becomes a call to fo_ioctl(). > > > I can see a couple of alternatives to this: > > 1 - Return a different error. Maybe ENXIO? > > or > > 2 - Have lseek() do the trivial implementation when the VOP_IOCTL() > > fails. > > - For SEEK_DATA, just return the offset given as argument and > > for SEEK_HOLE > > return the file's size as the offset. > > > > What do others think? rick > > ps: The man page should be updated, whatever is done w.r.t. this. > > > > I also vote for option 2 > If SEEK_DATA and SEEK_HOLE don't return the standard "ioctl not supported" error code and return a fake result, how are you supposed to determine at runtime whether SEEK_HOLE is supported or not? -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fe075daa384006c2056bb844cbccb6454c56fc3b.camel>