On 2018-02-06, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2018-02-06 18:13 GMT+09:00 Michael Forney <mforney@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Would you like me to include those other instances of `stat -c %s` in
>> this patch? I left them out for now because I wasn't sure if they
>> needed to be sent to various other maintainers as separate patches.
>
> I want all instances written in the same way
> once we make a decision.
>
> BTW, is the output format of ls(1) standardized?
> I am not familiar with this area.
Yes, it is[0]. The -d option turns on -l, which writes lines formatted like
"%s %u %s %s %u %s %s\n", <file mode>, <number of links>,
<owner name>, <group name>, <size>, <date and time>,
<pathname>
but instead of writing the <owner name> and <group name>, it writes
the numeric owner and group IDs (this avoids /etc/passwd and
/etc/group lookups as well as potential field splitting issues).
The <size> field is specified as "the value that would be returned for
the file in the st_size field of struct stat".
> Also, I am not a big fan of the mysterious two lines code.
> (We will have some more if we fix the rest of the instances)
>
>
> Perhaps, put
> set -- $(ls -dn $1)
> echo $5
>
> into "scripts/file-size.sh" (any other suitable file name is OK)
> then, call it like this?
>
> size1=$($CONFIG_SHELL $srctree/scripts/file-size.sh .tmp_kallsyms1.o)
> size2=$($CONFIG_SHELL $srctree/scripts/file-size.sh .tmp_kallsyms2.o)
>
>
> Is this less uglier?
This sounds reasonable to me. I will make this change.
[0] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/ls.html#tag_20_73_10
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
