Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qdd fadvise64_64 syscall

[Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:49:24AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:45:28PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > Since it's only a hint, we can just add a happy passwtrough. Also
> > from scratchbox.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>
> > -- 
> > "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups
> 
> > Index: trunk/linux-user/arm/syscall_nr.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- trunk.orig/linux-user/arm/syscall_nr.h	2008-09-07 02:32:28.000000000 +0300
> > +++ trunk/linux-user/arm/syscall_nr.h	2008-09-17 22:08:04.000000000 +0300
> > @@ -273,6 +273,7 @@
> >  #define TARGET_NR_fstatfs64			267
> >  #define TARGET_NR_tgkill			268
> >  #define TARGET_NR_utimes			269
> > +#define TARGET_NR_fadvise64_64			270
> >  #define TARGET_NR_arm_fadvise64_64		270
> >  #define TARGET_NR_pciconfig_iobase		271
> >  #define TARGET_NR_pciconfig_read		272

> It's wrong.
> ARM doesn't provide fadvise64_64 syscall. It provides arm_fadvise64_64
> with different argument order.

In this case, it doesn't matter since we don't use the arguments.
Nevertheless it's decepting and I'll remove it.

> > Index: trunk/linux-user/syscall.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- trunk.orig/linux-user/syscall.c	2008-09-17 21:43:47.000000000 +0300
> > +++ trunk/linux-user/syscall.c	2008-09-17 22:08:51.000000000 +0300
> > @@ -5532,6 +5532,12 @@
> >  		}
> >          break;
> >  #endif
> > +#ifdef TARGET_NR_fadvise64_64
> > +     case TARGET_NR_fadvise64_64:
> > +        /* This is a hint, so ignoring and returning success is ok.  */
> > +        ret = get_errno(0);
> > +        break;
> > +#endif
> >  #ifdef TARGET_NR_madvise
> >      case TARGET_NR_madvise:
> >          /* A straight passthrough may not be safe because qemu sometimes

> Who is this realization make happy?

EPARSE.


-- 
"rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups