>
> I think we want "n:v" here since -n expects an argument, even if we
> don't process the arg here.
Using getopt() to handle the -n argument, will make the inode command having 2
different entry points for the same argument, i.e. the inode number. One as an
argument for -n, and another as an argument for the command itself, like:
inode -n <num>
inode <num>
We need to handle [num] as a stand-alone argument anyway, so, I just don't think
we need to handle the same argument in different ways, which I achieved by not
using [num] as a getopt() argument, but instead, handling [num] 'manually'
according to the options used in getopt().
Not sure if I could be clear or get things more confused :)
> > + if (ret_next && verbose)
> > + return command_usage(&inode_cmd);
> > +
>
> Why is this not supported? Hmm, I see that -n returns an inode number
> and otherwise we print 0/1 or <inode>:<size> with -v. Perhaps this would
> be easier if the command semantics/output were more consistent. E.g.,
>
> "inode": print 0/1 based on largest inode size
> "inode -v": print <ino>:<size> of largest inode
> "inode <ino>": print <ino> if inode exists
> "inode -v <ino>": print <ino>:<size> if inode exists
I thought about this, but I decided to not do it because the command looks a bit
redundant for me when 'inode <ino' was returning 0 or 1. Returning the inode
number itself, if it exists, makes more sense to have a -v option here too.
> "inode -n <ino>": print <next ino> if next inode exists
> "inode -nv <ino>": print <next ino>:<size> if next inode exists
Just FYI, if the 'next inode' doesn't exist (i.e. using the last fs inode as
argument), the ioctl will return 0 in bstat.bs_ino, which, I choose to leave it
as-is, and adding this observation to the man page, instead of returning a
messag like "no more inodes in the fs".
I decided to leave it as-is, because for usage would be easier to parse a '0'
return value from -n argument, than parsing an error message which has the same
meaning of a zeroed return.
Anyway, I'm going add -v to the another options, just please take a look at my
replies regarding the 'inode -n' return value and the reason I didn't use
getopt() to handle -n argument and if you agree or not, so I'll rewrite the
patch to v6 based on this.
Cheers o>
--
Carlos
|