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.) - 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? - 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. - 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. 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. > > Note: > ... should I change all callsites from "non-numeric" to "invalid" perhaps? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
