Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:42:59 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> Subject: Re: posix_fallocate(2) && posix_fadvise(2) are somewhat broken Message-ID: <20151208174259.GA82577@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <868u55rl96.fsf@desk.des.no> References: <CAH7qZfvV-RepAc6N0UxFi2RBthxrd%2BqHD-Qh5dc-9v=NFGCy_w@mail.gmail.com> <868u55rl96.fsf@desk.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 04:52:05PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > Hi, while working on some unrelated feature I've noticed that at least > > those two system calls are not returning proper value (-1) on error. > > Instead actual errno value is returned from the syscall verbatim, > > i.e. posix_fadvise() returns 22 on EINVAL. > > That's how syscalls work. No, this is not how typical syscalls work, but is how the posix_fallocate() and posix_fadvise() are specified by Posix. The patch is wrong, see also r261080 and r288640.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151208174259.GA82577>