> > 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
