From owner-freebsd-emulation Wed Jul 19 17:36:57 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from blaze.net.au (gw-blaze.wire.net.au [203.36.3.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5913337B9C1 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:36:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from davidn@blaze.net.au) Received: from biscuit.mel.ausisp.net (apollo.wire.net.au [203.36.3.14]) by blaze.net.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21456 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:36:38 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from davidn@blaze.net.au) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:36:50 +1000 (EST) From: David Nugent X-Sender: davidn@biscuit.mel.ausisp.net To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Linux pread() / pwrite() Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Is there any particular reason why we do not gate Linux pread()/pwrite() syscalls into our kernel's version of the same functions? Linux and BSD manpages don't seem to indicate that there's some difference, but I note that Linux emulation currently defines them as stubs only. Interbase 6.0 Linux binaries seem to run fine when the appropriate gating of this syscall is done. It apparently uses pread()/pwrite() extensively for accessing databases, and there's been no sign of corruption of any problem at all. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message