On 01/09/2013 10:08 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 01/09/2013 07:36 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
why not check input_seekable where it is set - ~60 lines above?
I was trying to keep related code together.
Thanks for all the reviews, which I've fixed locally.
To provide an argument for why this
On 01/09/2013 07:36 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
why not check input_seekable where it is set - ~60 lines above?
I was trying to keep related code together.
Thanks for all the reviews, which I've fixed locally.
To provide an argument for why this shouldn't go in,
the following is equivalent:
From ea524ab7388bb35e591dcdb0fc7f7989d61143ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?=
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 00:42:38 +
Subject: [PATCH] dd: add [io]flag=seekable to verify file support for lseek
* src/dd.c: Add the new O_SEEKABLE flag.
(main): Verify leek() works if O
On 01/09/2013 02:14 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> I had a look around for a tool to verify
> that a file/device supports the seek operation
> and couldn't find one.
> So this seems like useful functionality.
> Worth applying the attached?
> * cfg.mk (sc_dd_O_FLAGS): Add O_SEEKABLE to the list of pr
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:14:22AM +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 01/08/2013 08:55 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 01/08/13 10:11, Neil Klopfenstein wrote:
>>> Note that it begins reading at the _beginning of the ar file_ -- the 'skip'
>>> argument has failed silently.
>>
>> But the 'skip' hasn
On 01/08/2013 05:14 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Worth applying the attached?
Looks good, except I would avoid calling lseek on
STDOUT_FILENO unless oflag=seekable is set. Just being
conservative: the effect of lseek on unseekable files is
implementation-defined.
On 01/08/2013 08:55 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 01/08/13 10:11, Neil Klopfenstein wrote:
Note that it begins reading at the _beginning of the ar file_ -- the 'skip'
argument has failed silently.
But the 'skip' hasn't failed. It's merely being implemented via 'read'
rather than via 'lseek'. The
On 01/08/13 10:11, Neil Klopfenstein wrote:
> Note that it begins reading at the _beginning of the ar file_ -- the 'skip'
> argument has failed silently.
But the 'skip' hasn't failed. It's merely being implemented via 'read'
rather than via 'lseek'. The records are being skipped correctly.
It m
Hi all,
While trying to diagnose a weird filesystem bug, I found an error in GNU dd
v8.12.
The weird bug is causing lseek() to fail improperly. That's not the problem
I'm reporting, though. I was trying to use dd to demonstrate the lseek
error to my sysadmin. Instead, I found that dd is ignoring
