From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p21KvpEI218930 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:57:51 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] libxcmd: return error from cvtnum() on overflow From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <4D6C1322.10102@sandeen.net> References: <4D6C075F.1010509@redhat.com> <4D6C1322.10102@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:00:37 -0600 Message-ID: <1299013237.2727.12.camel@doink> Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss 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.) - 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? - 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. - I'm not sure what you meant by "non-numeric" versus "invalid" in call sites. - Call sites seem to be a bit varied on how (or whether) they look for errors. Kind of a mess... 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. Reviewed-by: Alex Elder > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen > --- > > 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@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs