On Wed Feb 23 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
> > On Wed Feb 23 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:51 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:46:05 am Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> >> (Please bottom post
On Wed Feb 23 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
> > On Wed Feb 23 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:51 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:46:05 am Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> >> (Please bottom post
On Wed Feb 23 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
> > On Wed Feb 23 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:51 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:46:05 am Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> >> (Please bottom post
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Wed Feb 23 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:51 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:46:05 am Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> >> (Please bottom post)
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Andre
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
> On Wed Feb 23 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:51 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:46:05 am Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> >> (Please bottom post)
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Andre
On Wed Feb 23 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:51 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:46:05 am Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> (Please bottom post)
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Duane wrote:
> >>> I thought seeking past EOF was valid; wr
On Wed Feb 23 11, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:51 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:46:05 am Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> (Please bottom post)
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Duane wrote:
> >>> I thought seeking past EOF was valid; wr
On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:51 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:46:05 am Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> (Please bottom post)
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Duane wrote:
>>> I thought seeking past EOF was valid; writing something creates a file
> with a hole in it. I
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:46:05 am Garrett Cooper wrote:
> (Please bottom post)
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Duane wrote:
> > I thought seeking past EOF was valid; writing something creates a file
with a hole in it. I always assumed that was standard semantics.
>
> Tha
(Please bottom post)
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Duane wrote:
> I thought seeking past EOF was valid; writing something creates a file with a
> hole in it. I always assumed that was standard semantics.
That's with SET_HOLE/SET_DATA though, correct? If so, outside of
that functio
MA 01886-3418
From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org [owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org] On
Behalf Of Garrett Cooper [gcoo...@freebsd.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:22 AM
To: Alexander Best
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: seeking
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Alexander Best wrote:
> hi there,
>
> there's a PR [1] regarding seeking into /dev/null and /dev/zero. i just wanted
> to ask what the overall opinion is on this matter. technically it's quite easy
> to seek into those files upon fwrite(3) and fread(3). the point i
12 matches
Mail list logo