Manuel Menal, le Sun 31 Oct 2010 23:13:18 +0100, a écrit :
> I've included a change for the documentation as well.
Could you avoid reformating paragraphs? It makes finding out the actual
changes tedious.
Samuel
ts affected by this patch, and AFAICS everything is working
fine (and now pread() behaves as expected).
I've included a change for the documentation as well. As I'm not a
native speaker, my wording might not be elegant: someone might
want to proofread it.
diff --git a/boot/boot.c b/boot/
> Shouldn't we change io_write() too?
Yes, they are exact parallels.
xisting uses to make sure there aren't uses that would violate
> this new rule, but that's probably not too hard to find and fix up.
> Under POSIX, any negative argument to pread is invalid and so the pread
> function can diagnose that without making any RPC. Then, pread will call
> Manuel Menal, le Sat 09 Oct 2010 20:40:26 +0200, a écrit :
> > There should be a way to check if the object is seekable or not before
> > calling io_read(), so pread() can return an error. But there is no
> > io_seekable() RPC, and calling io_seek() seems wrong to me,
olate
this new rule, but that's probably not too hard to find and fix up.
Under POSIX, any negative argument to pread is invalid and so the pread
function can diagnose that without making any RPC. Then, pread will call
io_read with its nonnegative argument, and this will get ESPIPE from the io
Manuel Menal, le Sat 09 Oct 2010 20:40:26 +0200, a écrit :
> There should be a way to check if the object is seekable or not before
> calling io_read(), so pread() can return an error. But there is no
> io_seekable() RPC, and calling io_seek() seems wrong to me, since
> pread() is sup
Hello,
It seems the Hurd implementation of pread() is not POSIX-compliant.
POSIX stipulates that "An attempt to perform a pread() on a file that is
incapable of seeking shall result in an error"[0]. But the Hurd pread()
ignores the offset parameter.
The reason is quite simple: pread()
