On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 09:20:21 -0500
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 04:41:37PM +0000, Sad Clouds wrote:
> >
> > The whole idea of Unix was "everything is a file" and the sooner people
> > get rid of magic ioctls the better.
>
> But every
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 07:21:07 -0300
Crystal Kolipe wrote:
> In most cases, unless we are talking about a low-level disk utility, if
> userland code is trying to find out the size of a raw block device then it
> seems like a design error.
There are many valid reason why applications may want to wo
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 16:28:28 -0500
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:08:14PM +0000, Sad Clouds wrote:
> > Hello, thanks to everyone who responded with their suggestions. Using
> > various non-portable ioctls I can device size on most platforms, for
> &g
Hello, thanks to everyone who responded with their suggestions. Using
various non-portable ioctls I can device size on most platforms, for
both block and raw devices.
This is more convoluted than a single lseek() call, but it is what it
is. If anyone wants to do something similar, then the followi
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 12:48:34 -0800
Jason Thorpe wrote:
>
> > On Feb 21, 2024, at 2:52 AM, Sad Clouds wrote:
> >
> > Hello, for most operating systems determining the size of a block
> > device can be done with:
> >
> > lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_END);
>
>
Hello, for most operating systems determining the size of a block
device can be done with:
lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_END);
However, on NetBSD this does not seem to work.
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
int main(void)
{
int fd;
off_t offset;
fd = open("/dev/s
