0003174: in no mmu build, msyc() in sys/mman.h breaks msync() in linuxthreads.old/wrapsyscall.c

BusyBox Bug and Patch Tracking

Viewing Issue Simple Details [ Jump to Notes ]

[ View Advanced ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ]

Category

Severity

Reproducibility

Date Submitted

Last Update

0003174

[uClibc] Architecture Specific

minor

always

04-27-08 02:01

04-27-08 06:18

Reporter

kendallc

View Status

public

Assigned To

uClibc

Priority

normal

Resolution

open

Status

assigned

Product Version

Summary

0003174: in no mmu build, msyc() in sys/mman.h breaks msync() in linuxthreads.old/wrapsyscall.c

Description

For architectures with no MMU, some of the system calls in sys/mman.h were changed to be "static inline" calls that do nothing. This avoids making calls into the kernel that don't actually do anything. Unfortunately, the change breaks linuxthreads.old/wrapsyscall.c because it includes sys/mman.h but has its own implementation of msync().

The "static inline" declarations could also cause problems for other code that needs a pointer to msyc() or the other calls. I don't know why anyone would want a pointer to msyc(), but you never know what people will try do.

Additional Information

Attached Files

Relationships

Notes
(0007264) vda 04-27-08 06:18 edited on: 04-27-08 07:04	> The "static inline" declarations could also cause problems for other code that needs a pointer to msyc() or the other calls. I don't know why anyone would want a pointer to msyc(), but you never know what people will try do. Taking a pointer of inline function works in C. But having two different msync's is definitely not ok, yes.

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
04-27-08 02:01	kendallc	New Issue
04-27-08 02:01	kendallc	Status	new => assigned
04-27-08 02:01	kendallc	Assigned To	=> uClibc
04-27-08 06:18	vda	Note Added: 0007264
04-27-08 06:56	vda	Note Edited: 0007264
04-27-08 07:04	vda	Note Edited: 0007264