On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 03:26:22PM +0100, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > > > 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 :) > Sure, but I'm just referring to the error case when the user passes -n without an argument. This should return an error but it doesn't at the moment. I'm assuming that using "n:" would ensure the error message is printed without disrupting the other code (e.g., continue to process [num] manually even though "n:" is passed to getopt()). Is that the case? If not, the error could be detected/handled manually as well. Either way, a comment would also be useful here to document the special handling as you note above. > > > > + 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. > Not sure I follow... AFAICT the command semantics change depending on whether an inode number is passed or not (irrespective of -n and -v). If not, we're looking to see if the largest inode is 32-bit or 64-bit. If an inode number is passed, we're checking to see if an inode exists. Brian > > "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
