e2fsprogs 1.42.11 and above fails to build on uclibc

[Waldemar Brodkorb]

Hi Anthony,
Anthony G. Basile wrote,

> On 09/01/14 11:32, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
> >Hi Anthony,
> >Anthony G. Basile wrote,
> >
> >>Hi everyone,
> >>
> >>I've written a patch to introduce fallocate()/fallocate64() in
> >>uclibc. This is useful for e2fsprogs which now requires
> >>fallocate64(). [0]
> >>
> >>Before sending the patch, here's some background: e2fsprogs was
> >>using a direct syscall(__NR_fallocate, ...) in e4defrag which was
> >>broken [1]. This was removed and replaced by a simple "#error" if
> >>fallocate64 is not available, which it is not in uclibc, although
> >>posix_fallocate64 is. Ironically, e2fsprogs calls fallocate64 in
> >>default mode which is equivalent to posix_fallocate64.  I submitted
> >>a patch to e2fsprogs to use posix_fallocate in e4defrag[2].  Ted
> >>Ts'o's response was that they're not equivalent because, according
> >>to him, some implementations of posix_fallocate fall back on brute
> >>force zero-ing if the fallocate syscall is not available.  I
> >>responded [3], but the issue fell off the radar.
> >>
> >>Rather than pushing in that direction, I thought perhaps uclibc
> >>would benefit from the addition of fallocate/fallocate64.  Its a
> >>straight forward extension of what's already there since
> >>posix_fallocate syscalls fallocate with mode=0.  We just relax that
> >>for fallocate.  I didn't add tests because testing is already there
> >>for posix_fallocate.  I guess we could use test for the different
> >>modes, but I'm not sure how useful that might be for testing.
> >
> >As you working on extending fallocate functions, would it be
> >possible to fix the test case tst-posix_fallocate64?
> >
> >It would be nice to have this fixed, before adding changes to
> >posix_fallocate64 files, to see if your patch adds any regression
> >to the existing codebase. What do you think?
> >
> >See the test failures here:
> >http://openadk.org/test/
> >
> >May be it is just a simple bug, have not looked into this, yet.
> >
> >best regards
> >  Waldemar
> >
> 
> Strange, I'm not hitting it at my end.  What's even stranger is that
> tst-posix_fallocate64.c is two lines long and just includes
> tst-posix_fallocate.c which doesn't fail in your tests.  The tests
> pass at my end either with or without my patch.  See what's going on
> at your end.

It sets TST_POSIX_FALLOCATE64, which is handled separately in
tst-posix_fallocate.c. Which uClibc version you are using?
On which architecture?
 
best regards
 Waldemar