> alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) writes:
>
> > So why doesnt Ulrich add _LINUX_SOURCE for them ?
>
> Because there is a perfectly legal function lseek64.
Ok, can't argue with that. So mkfs etc should use open64/lseek64/close64 and
be happy ?
Not and be compatible with libc5.
I wouldn't have had a problem with Ulrich removing llseek() from the
prototypes if he had also removed llseek from libc. If lseek64() is the
right interface to use (and correctly calls the Linux llseek system
call), fine. Rename llseek to lseek64 and remove llseek altogether from
libc.
But leaving llseek() in the library but removing it from the prototype,
such that programs that use autoconf to determine whether or not llseek
exists was just irresponsible. I had to add an e2fsprogs autoconf test
to explicitly test for the presense of the function prototype (with
comments grumbling about glibc) as a result of this change, and people
who didn't know about this change and blithly recompiled e2fsprogs under
glibc trashed their >2GB filesystems. There's no way I could have
anticipated this when I released e2fsprogs 1.10, so I've been telling
people that it was purely glibc's fault (or their fault for deciding to
recompile e2fsprogs under glibc) that their filesystems were trashed.
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu