Re: [PATCH 1/7] tools/nolibc: also handle _llseek system call

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2026 at 05:38:26PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> The "preference" the commit message is talking about is not the
> ifdeffery as quoted above. Rather it is in the *outer* ifdeffery.
> 
> > The commit message should rather say something like:
> > 
> >   On some architectures the llseek system call contains a leading
> >   underscore. Fall back to it when llseek is not available and use it
> >   for the lseek system call as it is necessary for 64-bit offset handling.
> 
> The preference is llseek > _llseek > lseek. The important bit is not
> the order of llseek vs _llseek, as these will never occurr together
> anyways, but that _llseek is preferred over lseek.
> 
> What about:
> 
>   On some architectures the llseek system call contains a leading
>   underscore. Treat it the same way as llseek and prefer it over the
>   plain lseek system call as is necessary for 64-bit offset handling.

Got it now! That's indeed clearer and I initially misunderstood it as
what you debunked above :-)

Thanks!
Willy