statfs64 and !LFS

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 09:10:12PM +0400, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 06:12:06PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>[...]
>> 2009-10-14  Bernhard Reutner-Fischer  <rep.dot.nop at gmail.com>
>> 
>> 	* syscall.c (sys_truncate64, sys_ftruncate64, sys_getdents64,
>> 	sys_statfs64, sys_fstatfs64): Define to their !LFS counterparts
>> 	if largefilesupport is unavailable.
>
>Here is the hunk we are talking about:
>
>> --- a/syscall.c
>> +++ b/syscall.c
>> @@ -110,6 +110,18 @@
>>  #define TP TRACE_PROCESS
>>  #define TS TRACE_SIGNAL
>>  
>> +#ifndef HAVE_STAT64
>> +/*
>> + * Ugly hacks for systems that do not have LFS
>> + */
>> +
>> +#define sys_truncate64  sys_truncate
>> +#define sys_ftruncate64 sys_ftruncate
>> +#define sys_getdents64  sys_getdents
>> +#define sys_statfs64    sys_statfs
>> +#define sys_fstatfs64   sys_fstatfs
>> +#endif
>> +
>>  static const struct sysent sysent0[] = {
>>  #include "syscallent.h"
>>  };
>
>That is, you suggest to rename these *64 parsers to their counterparts
>when struct stat64 is not available.  But file.c defines these functions
>with different conditions: sys_truncate64, sys_ftruncate64 and
>sys_getdents64 symbols are defined iff _LFS64_LARGEFILE is true, and (with
>your 1st patch applied) sys_statfs64 and sys_fstatfs64 symbols are defined
>iff HAVE_STATFS64 is true.  With your patch applied, there would be an
>inconsistency between conditions in these two files: if there is a system
>where _LFS64_LARGEFILE or HAVE_STATFS64 is defined but HAVE_STAT64 is not
>defined, strace will fail to link there due to undefined symbols.

ok, so please drop the syscall.c hunk for now. We could revisit it later
on.

thanks,