From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] osst: Use noop_llseek() instead of default_llseek() Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:09:06 +0000 Message-ID: <20091120170906.GG20634@shareable.org> References: <1258735245-25826-1-git-send-email-jblunck@suse.de> <1258735245-25826-3-git-send-email-jblunck@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Alan Cox , Linux-Kernel Mailinglist , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , jkacur@redhat.com, Arnd Bergmann , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker , Willem Riede , "James E.J. Bottomley" To: Jan Blunck Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1258735245-25826-3-git-send-email-jblunck@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Jan Blunck wrote: > __os_scsi_tape_open() suggests that llseek() doesn't work: > "We really want to do nonseekable_open(inode, filp); here, but some > versions of tar incorrectly call lseek on tapes and bail out if that > fails. So we disallow pread() and pwrite(), but permit lseeks." > > Instead of using the fallback default_llseek() the driver should use > noop_llseek() which leaves the file->f_pos untouched but succeeds. st.c has the same comment, but I didn't see a patch for st.c in the series. -- Jamie