From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/cxgb4: Add default_llseek to debugfs files. Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:29:31 +0200 Message-ID: <201009292129.31415.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20100929141112.26944.21931.stgit@build.ogc.int> <201009292117.54828.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.9]:58384 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754970Ab0I2T3i (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:29:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Roland Dreier Cc: Steve Wise , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 29 September 2010 21:21:14 Roland Dreier wrote: > > > The main difference between default_llseek and generic_file_llseek > > is that default_llseek doesn't care about the maximum file size > > of the underlying file system, which is ULONG_MAX on debugfs, > > so they are equivalent. > > I thought default_llseek also takes the BKL still? Not any more in linux-next. > > In general, the preferred one is no_llseek for those files where > > you know you do not need to seek. If you do, I'd use default_llseek > > for character devices and generic_file_llseek for file systems > > that set the s_maxbytes. > > The case in question is for debugfs files, so we should use > generic_file_llseek, right? Yes, but it's a very weak "should". My automatic conversion script uses default_llseek. Arnd