From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fslibs: fix llseek on i386 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:16:05 -0500 Message-ID: <20130125021604.GB28908@thunk.org> References: <1359044517-18243-1-git-send-email-psusi@ubuntu.com> <20130124195158.GC9477@thunk.org> <5101980D.30904@ubuntu.com> <20130124203230.GA20776@thunk.org> <20130125022514.GA10883@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Phillip Susi , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:45372 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755629Ab3AYCQI (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:16:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130125022514.GA10883@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:25:14AM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > This patch makes me consider my patches that dump a sparse file in > debugfs. In my patch [1] llseek64(2) is called to seek to the next > data in target file. So I believe ext2fs_llseek() is a better choice. > I am happy to send a newer patch to fix it. What do you think? > > 1. http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg36134.html You're right, we should use ext2fs_llseek() for better portability. Thanks, - Ted