Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 09:04:05 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn@gmail.com> To: 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: <20190811090405.50cc49b1@ernst.home> In-Reply-To: <YTBPR01MB3616B6F068199B6A3329432CDDD00@YTBPR01MB3616.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> References: <YTBPR01MB3616B6F068199B6A3329432CDDD00@YTBPR01MB3616.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 -- Gary Jennejohn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190811090405.50cc49b1>