From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 1221 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2023 18:35:28 -0000 Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 15 Jul 2023 18:35:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 28368 invoked by uid 550); 15 Jul 2023 18:35:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 28344 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2023 18:35:22 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 14:35:11 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: Alejandro Colomar Cc: Paul Eggert , Sam James , libc-coord@lists.openwall.com, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, "A . Wilcox" , Jonathan Wakely , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, musl@lists.openwall.com, Szabolcs Nagy , Jakub Wilk Message-ID: <20230715183511.GJ4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <78b648da-dde7-d331-7384-03214b977e6d@kernel.org> <20230709061011.1885809-1-eggert@cs.ucla.edu> <87lefpehgo.fsf@gentoo.org> <3d36e6b2-57be-148e-a6fa-d7734279671d@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3d36e6b2-57be-148e-a6fa-d7734279671d@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] Re: [libc-coord] [PATCH v4] off64_t: prefer off_t for splice, etc. On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 05:08:18PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi Paul, Sam, and Rich, > > On 2023-07-09 08:16, Sam James wrote: > > > > Paul Eggert writes: > > > >> For the few functions that come only in 64-bit off_t flavors, > >> document their APIs as using off_t instead of off64_t, > >> and say also that code should #define _FILE_OFFSET_BITS 64. > >> This documents what user code is (and should be) doing anyway, > >> if it needs to work on traditional x86 and ARM Linux. > > > > LGTM and thank you Paul. > > > > I haven't checked for other prototypes/examples which need > > changing. > > Thanks, I'm going to apply the patch. Can you please confirm if I'm > correct in adding the following tags? > > Reported-by: Rich Felker > Fixes: 9bebb17e5b57 ("splice.2: Use 'off64_t' instead of 'loff_t'") > Fixes: 76c5631fb442 ("copy_file_range.2: Document glibc wrapper instead of kernel syscall") > Fixes: 5cabfa06b407 ("man-pages 1.68") > Fixes: 3ca974e3988a ("New page for sync_file_range(2), new in kernel 2.6.17.") > Fixes: 9bebb17e5b57 ("sync_file_range.2: Document the architecture-specific sync_file_range2() system call") > Fixes: 79bf8cdcf36a ("Document fopencookie(3), a library function that allows custom implementation of a stdio stream.") > Signed-off-by: Paul Eggert > Reviewed-by: Sam James > Cc: Jonathan Wakely > Cc: Szabolcs Nagy > Cc: Jakub Wilk > Cc: A. Wilcox > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar > > > BTW, Rich, please note the commits that this fixes: most of them are > the initial commit that adds a page, which means that the function > had always been documented with off64_t in the "spec". Only splice(2) > and copy_file_range(2) have been adjusted afterwards, and in a manner > to be consistent with the rest of the pages, so I can only conclude > that we didn't break the spec, but rather fixed it. > > Nevertheless, I'm sorry that it caused any problems to musl, and I'm > happy that you reported them and so we can now improve the pages. While I like off_t, I am still unhappy that this seems to have been a unilateral action from documentation side without even hearing input from any major implementors other than myself. Is "you can't use these interfaces without -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" an acceptable outcome to the glibc folks? Rich