On 3/1/11 3:00 PM, Alex Elder wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 15:26 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Test 071 was failing in weird ways, partly because it was trying
>> to pass in offsets larger than strtoll() could accept, which then
>> silently returned LLONG_MAX instead. For DIO tests, this was
>> unaligned, so we got unexpected (to me, anyay) alignment errors.
>> At least printing out the perror() makes this more obvious,
>> but unfortunately we then get the somewhat odd output:
>> # xfs_io -f -d -c "pwrite 9223373136366403584 4096" /mnt/test/grrr
>> cvtnum: Numerical result out of range
>> non-numeric offset argument -- 9223373136366403584
>> Test 071 still fails, but at least it's a bit more obvious as to why.
> Your change looks good. But here are a few more general questions
> (for anyone who cares to respond--not just you):
> - Do you plan to get test 071 working? (Just curious.)
some day maybe, and I'd like to make it a generic test.
> - mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c and extimate/xfs_estimate.c each define their
> own version of the same function. Do you know why? Is there
> any reason we couldn't just have one?
I don't know ;)
> - The three version of cvtnum() are each a bit different. Two
> of them (the other two) return -1 for an empty string, while
> this one returns 0.
> - I'm not sure what you meant by "non-numeric" versus "invalid"
> in call sites.
I mean perror says:
cvtnum: Numerical result out of range
but then the caller says:
non-numeric offset argument -- 9223373136366403584
"9223373136366403584" is not non-numeric; it is out of range. :)
> - Call sites seem to be a bit varied on how (or whether) they
> look for errors. Kind of a mess...
> Regardless, you can consider this one reviewed. We should
> fix all three instances of the function to fix this problem
> though--either the same as this (and in the same commit)
> or separeately.
ok I may fix up the others, I'd forgotten about that.
> Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> V2: zero errno first so we don't pick up a stale errno.
>> ... should I change all callsites from "non-numeric" to "invalid" perhaps?