[musl] Re: regression in man pages for interfaces using loff_t

[Rich Felker]

On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 11:21:39AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2023-06-28 10:53, Rich Felker wrote:
> >The whole reason loff_t exists is to avoid this problem and make a
> >type that's "always full width offset, regardless of _FILE_OFFSET_BITS
> >or _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE" to match with the kernel expectation for these
> >interfaces.
> 
> Why can't off64_t be that type, as it is in glibc? I'm not seeing
> why we need two names for the same type.

And to clarify one thing: nothing glibc is doing is wrong. It's fine
for glibc to define the function using off64_t as long as glibc's
underlying definitions of off64_t and loff_t are the same type. This
still matches the published documentation that says loff_t.

I'm not asking for any change by glibc here, just a revert to the man
page change which put a glibc implementation-detail in place of the
equivalent prior-documented public interface.

Rich