From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 12 03:41:59 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13BA106566C for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 03:41:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DD58FC08 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 03:41:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.0.63] (63.imp.bsdimp.com [10.0.0.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAC3fq8E039574 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:41:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <4ebe47ce.gGq91QcdXBP300Km%perryh@pluto.rain.com> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:41:45 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <201110281426.00013.jhb@freebsd.org> <4EB2C9DD.9090606@FreeBSD.org> <20111104160319.GD6110@elvis.mu.org> <201111080800.32717.jhb@freebsd.org> <6E287E90-AA62-4776-A09D-394D69C9494F@kientzle.com> <1B4CA8AC-8798-40CD-9379-FA0F379558DE@bsdimp.com> <4698F60B-CBF7-4D80-9368-CC6FBD893C0B@kientzle.com> <4ebe47ce.gGq91QcdXBP300Km%perryh@pluto.rain.com> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (harmony.bsdimp.com [10.0.0.6]); Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:41:54 -0700 (MST) Cc: tim@kientzle.com, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fadvise(2) system call X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 03:41:59 -0000 On Nov 12, 2011, at 3:17 AM, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Peter Wemm wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Tim Kientzle >> wrote: >>> ... seek(2) is badly broken on tape drives. >>> It does nothing and doesn't return an error ... >> >> Honestly, I think we've got bigger problems to worry about >> than whether lseek() works on magnetic tape drives ... > > True, but failing silently -- doing nothing but not returning an > error -- is a POLA violation. Those are worth fixing simply on > principle. Early Unix layering made that kinda hard... :( Warner