Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 05 2005, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > Jens Axboe writes:
> > > On Thu, Aug 04 2005, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > > > At the kernel summit, there was some discussion of relayfs and the
> > > > consensus was that it didn't make sense for relayfs to not imp
Andrew Morton writes:
>
> The use of `unsigned int' in here will cause >4G reads to fail on 64-bit
> platforms. I think you want size_t throughout.
OK, here's a patch that does that. It also switches to size_t for the
buffer-related sizes elsewhere in relayfs.
This applies on top of the pre
On Fri, Aug 05 2005, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> Jens Axboe writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 04 2005, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > > At the kernel summit, there was some discussion of relayfs and the
> > > consensus was that it didn't make sense for relayfs to not implement
> > > read(). So here's a read implementa
Jens Axboe writes:
> On Thu, Aug 04 2005, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > At the kernel summit, there was some discussion of relayfs and the
> > consensus was that it didn't make sense for relayfs to not implement
> > read(). So here's a read implementation...
>
> It needs a few fixes to actually co
On Thu, Aug 04 2005, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> At the kernel summit, there was some discussion of relayfs and the
> consensus was that it didn't make sense for relayfs to not implement
> read(). So here's a read implementation...
It needs a few fixes to actually compile without errors. This works for
Tom Zanussi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +static ssize_t relayfs_read(struct file *filp,
> +char __user *buffer,
> +size_t count,
> +loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> +struct inode *inode = filp->f_dentry->d_inode;
> +struct
At the kernel summit, there was some discussion of relayfs and the
consensus was that it didn't make sense for relayfs to not implement
read(). So here's a read implementation...
Andrew, please apply.
Tom
Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -urpN -X dontdiff linux-2.6.13-rc4-mm
7 matches
Mail list logo
