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. hrm. > - 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... yeah. > 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. -Eric > 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
