[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qdd fadvise64_64 syscall
From: |
Kirill A. Shutemov |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qdd fadvise64_64 syscall |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:49:24 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-29) |
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:45:28PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Since it's only a hint, we can just add a happy passwtrough. Also
> from scratchbox.
>
> Signed-off-by: Riku Voipio <address@hidden>
> --
> "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups
> Index: trunk/linux-user/arm/syscall_nr.h
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk.orig/linux-user/arm/syscall_nr.h 2008-09-07 02:32:28.000000000
> +0300
> +++ trunk/linux-user/arm/syscall_nr.h 2008-09-17 22:08:04.000000000 +0300
> @@ -273,6 +273,7 @@
> #define TARGET_NR_fstatfs64 267
> #define TARGET_NR_tgkill 268
> #define TARGET_NR_utimes 269
> +#define TARGET_NR_fadvise64_64 270
> #define TARGET_NR_arm_fadvise64_64 270
> #define TARGET_NR_pciconfig_iobase 271
> #define TARGET_NR_pciconfig_read 272
It's wrong.
ARM doesn't provide fadvise64_64 syscall. It provides arm_fadvise64_64
with different argument order.
> Index: trunk/linux-user/syscall.c
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk.orig/linux-user/syscall.c 2008-09-17 21:43:47.000000000 +0300
> +++ trunk/linux-user/syscall.c 2008-09-17 22:08:51.000000000 +0300
> @@ -5532,6 +5532,12 @@
> }
> break;
> #endif
> +#ifdef TARGET_NR_fadvise64_64
> + case TARGET_NR_fadvise64_64:
> + /* This is a hint, so ignoring and returning success is ok. */
> + ret = get_errno(0);
> + break;
> +#endif
> #ifdef TARGET_NR_madvise
> case TARGET_NR_madvise:
> /* A straight passthrough may not be safe because qemu sometimes
Who is this realization make happy?
--
Regards, Kirill A. Shutemov
+ Belarus, Minsk
+ ALT Linux Team, http://www.altlinux.com/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature