Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1431788 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 20/27] [AARCH64] Make lp64 and ilp32 directories.

Started byAndreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
First post2016-06-27 10:00 +0200
Last post2016-06-27 10:10 +0200
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH 20/27] [AARCH64] Make lp64 and ilp32 directories. Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> - 2016-06-27 10:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 20/27] [AARCH64] Make lp64 and ilp32 directories. Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-06-27 10:10 +0200

#1431788 — Re: [PATCH 20/27] [AARCH64] Make lp64 and ilp32 directories.

FromAndreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Date2016-06-27 10:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 20/27] [AARCH64] Make lp64 and ilp32 directories.
Message-ID<rOzCx-5JR-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> writes:

> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/bits/fcntl.h b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/bits/fcntl.h
> index 658f696..7dcbe65 100644
> --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/bits/fcntl.h
> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/bits/fcntl.h
> @@ -25,7 +25,11 @@
>  #define __O_NOFOLLOW	0100000
>  #define __O_DIRECT	0200000
>  
> -#define __O_LARGEFILE	0
> +#ifdef __ILP32__
> +# define __O_LARGEFILE	0400000
> +#else
> +# define __O_LARGEFILE	0
> +#endif

Is there any point in defining O_LARGEFILE to non-zero if the kernel is
enforcing it anyway?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1431793

FromArnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date2016-06-27 10:10 +0200
Message-ID<rOzMd-62T-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1431788
On Monday, June 27, 2016 9:56:13 AM CEST Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> writes:
> 
> > diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/bits/fcntl.h b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/bits/fcntl.h
> > index 658f696..7dcbe65 100644
> > --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/bits/fcntl.h
> > +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/bits/fcntl.h
> > @@ -25,7 +25,11 @@
> >  #define __O_NOFOLLOW 0100000
> >  #define __O_DIRECT   0200000
> >  
> > -#define __O_LARGEFILE        0
> > +#ifdef __ILP32__
> > +# define __O_LARGEFILE       0400000
> > +#else
> > +# define __O_LARGEFILE       0
> > +#endif
> 
> Is there any point in defining O_LARGEFILE to non-zero if the kernel is
> enforcing it anyway?

The kernel might want to return -EINVAL for undefined flags. I'm not
sure if we want to do that here, but it would seem like a correct
return code.

	Arnd

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web