Re: 2.4.17 & kbdrate

[Geert U. <ge...@li...>]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Reinhard Nissl wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Reinhard Nissl wrote:
> > > Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Reinhard Nissl wrote:
> > > > > On the other hand: what's wrong in seeking beyond EOF?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.
> > >
> > >       fd = open( "/dev/port", O_RDWR )
> > >       lseek( fd, 0x64, 0 );
> > >
> > > The call to open() succeeds, as there exists /dev/port. Why doesn't lseek()
> > > simply return an error value instead of causing a signal 11?
> > 
> > I don't think it causes signal 11 in the lseek, but in the read/write phase.
> 
> Going back some mails ago, there is:
> 
> > > > Call backtrace:
> > > > C0035C60 C0003E7C 01800B2C 016DBA08 00000000
> > >   ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > sys_lseek, ret_from_syscall_1
> 
> So, sys_lseek calls read_port and causes a signal 11.

Strange, from looking at the sources, I don't see how sys_lseek() can cause
read_port() to be called.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@li...

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds