[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: new e2fsprogs & partitions > than 2gig?



Ralf Baechle writes:
 > [1  <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]
 > On Sun, Oct 19, 1997 at 09:36:40PM +0200, Juan Cespedes wrote:
 > > On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Alexander E. Apke wrote:
 > > 
 > > > 	Has someone tested the new e2fsprogs 1.10-6 to make sure it won't
 > > > eat drives with partitions > than 2 gig.  I am trying to be very carefull
 > > > to make sure my drive doesn't get hosed by this problem.
 > > 
 > > 	It doesn't work.  Same behaviour as 1.10-4: it fails in all the
 > > blocks above 2Gb (see Bug#13892).

But there is a big difference: 1.10-4 failed because I compiled it
with libc6, without being aware of the llseek() prototyping problem;
1.10-6 is compiled with LIBC5, not libc6, and incorporates patches
which proved to solve the problem when compiling with libc6 (1.10-5.1) !!

After looking at my system, it seems that libc5_5.4.33-5 doesn't have
a prototype for llseek() either !!!  Can someone tell when it did
disappear ?  I just can find the syscall defined, but get no
libc-level interface:

 $ find /usr/include/ -name '*.h' -exec grep llseek {} \; -print
 #define __NR__llseek            140
 /usr/include/asm/unistd.h
 #define SYS__llseek __NR__llseek
 /usr/include/syscall-list.h
 $ 

 > That's a trivial bug, the prototype for llseek is missing in glibc.
 > Ulrich Drepper argues llseek(2) is a internal function only.  Stupid enough,
 > the function exists and is well established in the Linux world, so it
 > should be declared correctly.  In other words, I think the decission not
 > to have a prototype for llseek in glibc is a desaster just waiting to
 > eat disks.  Whatever, the patch against vanilla e2fsutils 1.10 is attached.

 > +extern loff_t llseek (int fd, loff_t offset, int whence);
 > +

FYI, the debian patch for 1.10-6 includes, from upstream maintainer:

+#if (__GLIBC__ == 2)
+ext2_loff_t llseek (int fd, ext2_loff_t offset, int origin);
+#endif


The problem may be that glibc-level modifications were taken back into
libc5 ?

I guess I will just supress these #if () for 1.10-7.

See you tomorrow,
-- 
Yann Dirson  <ydirson@a2points.com>      | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
alt-email:     <dirson@univ-mlv.fr>      |     support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email:   <dirson@debian.org>      |         more powerful, more stable !
http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 |
                    -----------------------------------------
                    A computer engineer's looking for a job !
                    -----------------------------------------


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: