I think it's meant that posix_fallocate must use fallocate as it is implemented
now.
int posix_fallocate(int fd, __off_t offset, __off_t len)
{
return __libc_fallocate(fd, 0, offset, len);
}
Regards,
Yuriy Kolerov
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Felker [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rich Felker
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 12:53 AM
To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
Cc: Yuriy Kolerov; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libc: fix setting return value and errno in fallocate()
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 09:27:40PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On September 17, 2015 6:16:48 PM GMT+02:00, Yuriy Kolerov
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Hi Rich.
> >
> >fallocate must return 0 or -1. However posix_fallocate my return an
> >error code. So I think it would be better to allow posix_fallocate
> >change errno as fallocate does it and fix posix_fallocate return
> >value according to POSIX.
>
> fallocate () should be implemented on top of posix_fallocate, yes.
I don't think this is possible. fallocate has an extra mode argument which
posix_fallocate lacks.
Rich
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
