Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:59:50 -0800 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: posix_fallocate(2) && posix_fadvise(2) are somewhat broken Message-ID: <CAH7qZfu16HwLkNXS4_BpiomN4CFbufYgp4RvUZ02N=4f7j7X0A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20151208174259.GA82577@kib.kiev.ua> References: <CAH7qZfvV-RepAc6N0UxFi2RBthxrd%2BqHD-Qh5dc-9v=NFGCy_w@mail.gmail.com> <868u55rl96.fsf@desk.des.no> <20151208174259.GA82577@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ah, ok, I see now. It's been broken and still broken in 9.x/10.x, already fixed in trunk and I been just reading wrong manpage. Thanks for the pointer, on a related note those fixes should probably be MFCed into 10.3 if it has not been already. On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 04:52:05PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > > Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > > Hi, while working on some unrelated feature I've noticed that at least > > > those two system calls are not returning proper value (-1) on error. > > > Instead actual errno value is returned from the syscall verbatim, > > > i.e. posix_fadvise() returns 22 on EINVAL. > > > > That's how syscalls work. > > No, this is not how typical syscalls work, but is how the posix_fallocate() > and posix_fadvise() are specified by Posix. The patch is wrong, see also > r261080 and r288640. > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAH7qZfu16HwLkNXS4_BpiomN4CFbufYgp4RvUZ02N=4f7j7X0A>