Re: 2.4.17 & kbdrate

[Reinhard N. <rn...@gm...>]

Hi,

Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 
> 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.

You are right, strace comes to the same conclusion. sys_lseek() is ok,
read_port() fails.

How is it, that the "call backtrace" shows the last call?

Bye.
--
Dipl.-Inform. (FH) Reinhard Nissl
mailto:rn...@gm...