Re: why is lseek broken (>= 2.4.11) ?

[Phil Auld <pauld@egenera.com>]

Rumor has it that on Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 11:13:06PM +0200 Andries Brouwer said:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 01:48:47PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > What should the behaviour be?   The lseek should succeed,
> 
> Yes
> 
> > but subsequent reads and writes return zero?
> 
> Yes. The first read must return 0. Subsequent reads may return 0
> or return the ENXIO error.
> 
> For read: "No data transfer shall occur past the current end-of-file.
> If the starting position is at or after the end-of-file, 0 shall be
> returned. If the file refers to a device special file, the result of
> subsequent read() requests is implementation-defined."
> 
> ENXIO: "the request was outside the capabilities of the device".
> 
> For write: "If a write() requests that more bytes be written than
> there is room for (for example, ... the physical end of a medium),
> only as many bytes as there is room for shall be written.
> 

Agreed. That is what the standards say... And what userspace has come to expect.


Phil


> 
> Andries
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
Philip R. Auld, Ph.D.                  Technical Staff 
Egenera Corp.                        pauld@egenera.com
165 Forest St., Marlboro, MA 01752       (508)858-2600