fs/proc/uptime.c:uptime_proc_show() fetches time using
ktime_get_boottime which includes the time spent in suspend.
Signed-off-by: Stephan Knauss <linux@stephans-server.de>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Balbir pointed out that v1 delegation was not an accidental
feature.
Reported-by: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Marcus Gelderie <redmnic@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Update the bug reporting email address to that shown by
/bin/time --help
Signed-off-by: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@jwilk.net>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Use \(aq for ASCII apostrophes and \(ga for backtick,
as recommended by groff_man(7).
Signed-off-by: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@jwilk.net>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
I was reading the local-gen bash script, looking for why I'm
getting locale errors, when I noticed that localdef's -f and -c
options were named, in what I think, is a very confusing way.
-c is the same as --force, and
-f charmapfile is the same as --charmap=charmapfile.
Yes, it would have been better if they're names had been reversed,
like this:
-f is the same as --force, and
-c charmapfile is the same as --charmap=charmapfile.
But given what they are, I thought it would be helpful to give a
heads up to watch for their irregular naming. I hope I've worded
it appropriately.
I'm not ccing this to anyone else, (i.e. developers, etc), as
these features work as described in the man page. They're just
confusing.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
According to the latest glibc, the bsd_signal() function is just
declared when POSIX.1-2008 (or newer) instead of POSIX.1-2001 is
not set since glibc v2.26.
Please see the following code from signal/signal.h:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
/* The X/Open definition of `signal' conflicts with the BSD version.
So they defined another function `bsd_signal'. */
extern __sighandler_t bsd_signal (int __sig, __sighandler_t __handler)
__THROW;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
O_RSYNC is defined in <asm/fcntl.h> on HP PA-RISC, but is not
used anyway.
Signed-off-by: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Add a note regarding other implementations of whiteout inodes
and update filesystem support information.
Signed-off-by: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
This information is already summarized in syscall(2), so there's
no need to repeat it in each page.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Some architectures (ab)use second return value register for additional
return value in some system calls. Let's describe this.
Signed-off-by: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Clarify that SO_PASSCRED results in SCM_CREDENTIALS data in each
subsequently received message.
See https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201805
Reported-by: Felipe Gasper <felipe@felipegasper.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
As reported by Nadav Har'El in
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197961
The write(2) manual page has this paragraph:
"On success, the number of bytes written is returned
(zero indicates nothing was written). It is not an error
if this number is smaller than the number of bytes
requested; this may happen for example because the disk
device was filled. See also NOTES."
I find a few problems with this paragraph:
1. It's not clear what "See also NOTES." refers to (does it
refer to anything?). What in the NOTES is relevant here?
2. The paragraph seems to suggest that write(2) of a
non-empty buffer may sometimes return even 0 in case of an
error like the device being filled. I think this is wrong
- if there was an error after already writing some number
of bytes, this non-zero number is returned. But if there's
an error before writing any bytes, -1 will be returned
(and the error reason in errno) - 0 will not be returned
unless the given count is 0 (that case is explained in the
following paragraph).
3. The paragraph doesn't explain what a user should do
after a short write (i.e., write(2) returning less than
count). How would the user know why there was an error, or
if there even was one? I think users should be told what
to do next because this information is part of how to use
this API correctly. I think users should be told to retry
the rest of the write (i.e., write(fd, buf+ret, count-ret)
and this will either succeed in writing some more data if
the error reason was solved, or the second write will
return -1 and the error reason in errno.
Reported-by: Nadav Har'El <nyh@math.technion.ac.il>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
ENOATTR is not a standard error code, but rather one that is
defined in 'libattr' as a synonym for ENODATA. The manual pages
should use the error code actually returned by the kernel APIs.
See also https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201995
Reported-by: Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz@sigma-chemnitz.de>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
alpha use v0 e.g. $0 as the return value register both in
syscall ABI and C ABI.
see also
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/alpha/kernel/entry.S#L479
The normal Alpha C ABI use a0~a5 to pass arguments and use v0 as
the return value register. See here
https://www2.cs.arizona.edu/projects/alto/Doc/local/alpha.register.html
The syscall ABI use v0 as the trap number, a0~a5 to pass arguments
and use a3 as a indicator (bool type) whether has a error occurred.
We can also see the libc's syscall wrapper implements at
https://code.woboq.org/userspace/glibc/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/alpha/syscall.S.html
The v0 is the normal used as return register, and we can see the
return processing doesn't do anything about a0 which is the wrong
register of currently syscall(2) description.
p.s. I found this wrong description because I'm porting Go gc to
a new CPU architecture which is similar to Alpha, And I use the
wrong register at first, then I have inspect the kernel code and
objdump to ensure the right syscall ABI.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Ignat Loskutov