Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:13:10 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: mdf@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: extattr_set_*() return type Message-ID: <20111221161310.GW50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <201112211031.11977.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201112201649.06265.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAMBSHm-6VpY_8BkkSJyDThw3DwioaSvC=soZQqcYDAE3jh3oqA@mail.gmail.com> <201112211031.11977.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--dekGTJBfK0OxIkXB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:31:11AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:18:58 pm mdf@freebsd.org wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:49 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > Hmm, if these functions are expected to operate like 'write(2)' and a= re > > > supposed to return the number of bytes written, shouldn't their retur= n value > > > be 'ssize_t' instead of 'int'? It looks like the system calls themse= lves > > > already do the right thing in setting td_retval[] (they assign a ssiz= e_t to it > > > and td_retval[0] can hold a ssize_t on all of our current platforms).= It > > > would seem that the only change would be to the header and probably > > > syscalls.master. I guess this would require a symver bump to fix tho= ugh. > >=20 > > An extended attribute larger than 2GB is a programming abuse, though. > > Technically int may not be 32 bits but it is on all supported > > platforms now. >=20 > Today it is an abuse. In the 90's a 64-bit off_t was considered an abuse= by > some. :) >=20 > The type should match the documented behavior. On OS X the set operation > doesn't return a size but instead returns a simple success/failure (0 or = -1) > for which an int is appropriate. However, the FreeBSD API documents that= it > operates like write and consumes the buffer. Note that the size of the > buffer passed to the 'set' and 'get' operations is a size_t, not an int, = and > the 'get' operations already return a ssize_t, not an int. Note that read(2)/write(2) do return int. I still have WIP patch to fix this, but after some conversations with Bruce I am not sure it is worth finishing. --dekGTJBfK0OxIkXB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk7yBZYACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4jUzQCfR3CXwLMZ9MMWuxN+v8Llnox5 NFYAmgIns4Y1urAY5DTY5huLDk+//+vZ =Z0YS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dekGTJBfK0OxIkXB--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111221161310.GW50300>