[PATCH] posix_favise{64} error handling fixes [was Re: fadvise gclibc vs uclibc]

Khem Raj raj.khem at gmail.com
Mon Sep 15 21:37:20 UTC 2008


On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:55 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO <carmelo.amoroso at st.com> wrote:
> Corinna Schultz wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Carmelo AMOROSO <carmelo.amoroso at st.com>:
>>>
>>> a colleague of mine is right now working to produce a patch for
>>> posix_fadvise to fix all LTP tests using posix_fadvise[64].
>>>
>>> Indeed LTP tests expect that, when posix_fadvise[64] fails,
>>> it should return as return value an error code (-errno) instead
>>> of simply setting properly errno and returning -1.
>>
>> Did you see my earlier message, detailing the errors I'm seeing? I have
>> very little experience with this low-level programming, and don't really
>> know how to begin fixing it, so if you have people already working on it,
>> I'll happily wait for your patch. :) Do you have an estimate of when your
>> patch will be available?
>>
>> -Corinna
>>
>>
>>
> Hi Corinna, may you try the attached patch.
> It worked fine for NPTL branch solving all LTP posix_fadvise tests.
> Let me know, so we can enqueue for commit.
>
> Thanks to Filippo for having fixed this.

It needs to to be tested on all arches which use common/posix_fadvise*
implementation.

Thanks

-Khem



More information about the uClibc mailing list