On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:00:07AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:43:35PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > 64 bit architectures all implement their own compatibility sys_open(),
> > > when in fact the difference is simply not forcing the O_LARGEFILE
> > > flag. So us
> Please don't leave the functions inside of the architecture specific code.
> The code is common enough to be shared, so just put a new compat_sys_open()
> function into fs/compat.c.
OK. Done for x86_64, ia64, ppc64. Sparc64 does magic things with
sparc32_open(), so I left it as it is.
> I'm a
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:43:35PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > 64 bit architectures all implement their own compatibility sys_open(),
> > when in fact the difference is simply not forcing the O_LARGEFILE
> > flag. So use the a common function instead.
>
> Traditional naming would be just d
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:43:35PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 64 bit architectures all implement their own compatibility sys_open(),
> when in fact the difference is simply not forcing the O_LARGEFILE
> flag. So use the a common function instead.
Traditional naming would be just do_open(), bu
On Dinsdag 23 August 2005 22:43, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 64 bit architectures all implement their own compatibility sys_open(),
> when in fact the difference is simply not forcing the O_LARGEFILE
> flag. So use the a common function instead.
> Index: linux/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c
> ==
5 matches
Mail list logo
