From owner-freebsd-emulation Wed Jul 19 17:44: 1 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from palrel3.hp.com (palrel3.hp.com [156.153.255.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B2637B588 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:43:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@cup.hp.com) Received: from adlmail.cup.hp.com (adlmail.cup.hp.com [15.0.100.30]) by palrel3.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B7C0411F; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cup.hp.com (gauss.cup.hp.com [15.28.97.152]) by adlmail.cup.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02) with ESMTP id RAA28545; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <39764B4B.926334A9@cup.hp.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:43:55 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar Organization: Hewlett-Packard X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Nugent Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linux pread() / pwrite() References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org David Nugent wrote: > > 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. They are implemented and MFC'd just this week. The difference is on the syscall level, BTW. -- Marcel Moolenaar mail: marcel@cup.hp.com / marcel@FreeBSD.org tel: (408) 447-4222 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message