From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: What should listxattr() return if there are no xattrs?
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:57:17 +0530
Message-ID: <m3zkrzoimy.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <E1PUflN-0006QE-9s@tytso-glaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	a.gruenbacher@bestbits.at,
	Wang Sheng-Hui <crosslonelyover@gmail.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e23smtp02.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.144]:37587 "EHLO
	e23smtp02.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S933461Ab0LUE10 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:27:26 -0500
Received: from d23relay04.au.ibm.com (d23relay04.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.246])
	by e23smtp02.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id oBL4MX4L029487
	for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:22:33 +1100
Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97])
	by d23relay04.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id oBL4ROhZ2125906
	for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:27:24 +1100
Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id oBL4RNum024729
	for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:27:24 +1100
In-Reply-To: <E1PUflN-0006QE-9s@tytso-glaptop>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:26:53 -0500, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Wang Sheng-Hui has sent some patches that change listxattr for the extN
> file systems to return ENODATA when an inode has no extended attributes
> (instead of zero).
> 
> I've noted that neither btrfs nor XFS do this, and would have rejected
> the patches on that basis. However, I'll note the man page for the
> listxattr(2) syscall is ambiguous:
> 
>     On  success,  a  positive number is returned indicating the size of the
>     extended attribute name list.  On failure, -1 is returned and errno  is
>     set appropriately.
> 
> It states that on success a _positive_ number is returned.  I've looked
> and this wordining is in SGI's man page as well.  I suspect the man page
> should be corrected to sate that "non-negative" number is returned?

I agree that man page needs update. Note that getfattr code does

	length = do_listxattr(path, NULL, 0);
	if (length < 0) {
		fprintf(stderr, "%s: %s: %s\n", progname, xquote(path, "\n\r"),
			strerror_ea(errno));
		had_errors++;
		return 1;
	} else if (length == 0)
		return 0;
		

-aneesh