On 11/21/2013 06:41 PM, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
"Khem" == Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> writes:
Hi,
>>>> The code nicely checks for it, but then ends up hard coding the
>>>> syscall to use __NR_pread64 afterwards, rendering the check
>>>> useless. Fix it by using the result of the test instead.
>>
Mike> i think you should look at all the pread/pwrite changes in
Mike> master. afaik, all issues are addressed there.
>>
>> Yes, possible. I'm trying to test the 0.9.33 branch to hopefully speed
>> up the 0.9.33.3 release as there's quite some fixes pending, but it
>> looks like some more stuff should get backported.
>>
>> Anybody else testing the branch?
> I would be interested if you try out latest master.
Sorry for the slow response - I only now found time to do so. I'm happy
to say that the pread issue ISN'T present on todays snapshot of master.
So these pread/pwrite changes imho should get backported to to the
0.9.33 branch if we ever plan on doing a bugfix release from it.
I hit a nasty race condition in git 1.8 because pread/pwrite are not
atomic in 0.9.33.2 [1]. I've been meaning to backport Mike's fixes for
Gentoo, but really we should push out another release. The linux kernel
has provided pread/pwrite for a long time now, no need to simulate them
with lseek().
Ref
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=475920
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
