From dev-return-17823-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Fri Jan 05 11:43:24 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 66861 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2007 11:43:23 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Jan 2007 11:43:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 50177 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jan 2007 11:43:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 50134 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jan 2007 11:43:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 50123 invoked by uid 99); 5 Jan 2007 11:43:28 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 03:43:28 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of jorton@redhat.com designates 66.187.233.31 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.187.233.31] (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 03:43:19 -0800 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l05BgvPE012705 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 06:42:57 -0500 Received: from radish.cambridge.redhat.com (radish.cambridge.redhat.com [172.16.18.90]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l05BgukG010464 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 06:42:57 -0500 Received: from radish.cambridge.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by radish.cambridge.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l05Bgurr030336 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:42:56 GMT Received: (from jorton@localhost) by radish.cambridge.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l05Bgtfb030334 for dev@apr.apache.org; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:42:55 GMT Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:42:55 +0000 From: Joe Orton To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux 2.4 may or may not implement sendfile64() Message-ID: <20070105114255.GB29207@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: dev@apr.apache.org References: <20070105111943.GA10870@p12n.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070105111943.GA10870@p12n.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 05:19:44AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > apr incorrectly detects the sendfile64() syscall on Linux 2.4 on > non-i386 architectures. The problem is that on Linux, libc is not > tightly coupled to your installed kernel, so libc exposes syscalls > which may or may not be implemented kernel-side, requiring runtime > detection of errno==ENOSYS. OK nice. Why does this require run-time detection rather than simply a smarter configure test (or apr_hints.m4 blacklist or whatever)? It's a kernel bug/lack-of-feature which is either fixed or not in whatever kernel you build on, surely? Regards, joe