From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10301181534.AA21327@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: lseek() calling llseek()
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 09:34:40 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <200301181041.h0IAfYc20680@brother.ludd.luth.se> from "Martin Str|mberg" at Jan 18, 2003 11:41:34 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> You had comments on that lseek() didn't call llseek() (or they both
> calling a common routine). Here's a patch making lseek() call
> llseek().
> 
> Comments are welcome. In particular on my documentation changes and the 
> last return statement in lseek() (which could be made safer with some more 
> lines of code).

I had put changes on this on hold for a while - it seems it would end up
being integrated with the large file summit stuff.  But your patch below
looks like a good idea to me; I would agree going ahead with it (I didn't
analyze the return behavior in detail like Eli did...).  

I'm was concerned about having different fsext hooks for lseek and 
llseek - I really think these should be the same - and it looks like
you've fixed that in a compatible way.

Thanks for working on this.