New: posix_fadvise(2): wrong param name?
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75431
Bug ID: 75431
Summary: posix_fadvise(2): wrong param name?
Product: Documentation
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: low
Priority: P1
Component: man-pages
Assignee: documentation_man-pages-ztI5WcYan/[email protected]
Reporter: pub08-knl-Hke7B/[email protected]
Regression: No
In posix_fadvise(2), under "Architecture-specific variants", it says:
[Due to register-alignment issues,]
... the call signature of posix_fadvise() shown in
the SYNOPSIS would force a register to be wasted as padding between the fd and len arguments.
Should it say "offset" instead of "len" in the last line of that quoted bit?
Rationale: the SYNOPSIS shows a call signature of:
int posix_fadvise(int fd, off_t offset, off_t len, int advice);
in which:
- fd and len aren't adjacent
- it's between a shorter value followed by a longer one that I'd expect
alignment padding to be needed, and the only pair where that occurs is (fd, offset)
CAVEAT: I'm not familiar with either the syscall or the specific alignment issues in question, so my guess about this is just that -- a deduced guess, NOT specific knowledge. So don't make the change on my say-so; please verify it first!
Signature · 6 lines
You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Bug 75431] posix_fadvise(2): wrong param name?
In reply to a message not in the archivehttps://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75431
Michael Kerrisk <[email protected]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |[email protected]
Resolution|--- |CODE_FIX--- Comment #1 from Michael Kerrisk <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eric Siegerman from comment #0)
Quoted 8 lines
In
posix_fadvise(2), under "Architecture-specific variants", it says:
[Due to register-alignment issues,]
... the call signature ofposix_fadvise()shown in
the SYNOPSIS would force a register to be wasted as padding between the fd and len arguments.Should it say "offset" instead of "len" in the last line of that quoted bit?
Quoted 7 lines
Rationale: the SYNOPSIS shows a call signature of:
int posix_fadvise(int fd, off_t offset, off_t len, int advice);in which:
- fd and len aren't adjacent
- it's between a shorter value followed by a longer one that I'd expect
alignment padding to be needed, and the only pair where that occurs is (fd, offset)
The change sounds right to me. I've made it.
Quoted 4 lines
CAVEAT: I'm not familiar with either the syscall or the specific alignment issues in question, so my guess about this is just that -- a deduced guess, NOT specific knowledge. So don't make the change on my say-so; please verify it first!
I'm going to trust you on this one ;-). I was the one who injected the error in the first place.
Signature · 6 lines
You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html