From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V4 3/3] fs: add filesystem switch libary, implement ls and fsload commands
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:01:20 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50904E30.6070907@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <761065953.288586.1351634387744.JavaMail.root@advansee.com>
On 10/30/2012 03:59 PM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 10:18:03 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 10/30/2012 02:23 PM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
>>>> +int do_ls(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const
>>>> argv[],
>>>> + int fstype)
>>>> +{
>>>> + if (argc < 2)
>>>> + return CMD_RET_USAGE;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (fs_set_blk_dev(argv[1], (argc >= 3) ? argv[2] : NULL,
>>>> fstype))
>>>> + return 1;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (fs_ls(argc == 4 ? argv[3] : "/"))
>>>
>>> IMHO, it would be better to just ignore the possible extra
>>> arguments, like in:
>>> + if (fs_ls(argc >= 4 ? argv[3] : "/"))
>>
>> Here I don't agree. If the command expects a certain set of
>> arguments,
>> we should validate that the user provided exactly that set, and no
>> more.
>> If we allow arbitrary cruft, then if we need to add new arguments
>> later,
>> we won't be able to guarantee that handling those extra arguments
>> won't
>> break some existing broken usage of the command.
>
> My comment was misleading. Actually, with the current code, do_ls() can not be
> called (except directly) if there are more than 4 arguments, because of the way
> the ls command is declared through U_BOOT_CMD(). Hence, if ">=" is used,
> arguments can be added later without changing existing lines.
Ah OK, that makes sense.
> And if we consider a direct call to do_ls() skipping the command system, then
> this function should return CMD_RET_USAGE if argc > 4.
True.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-30 22:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-22 16:43 [U-Boot] [PATCH V4 1/3] fs: delete unused Makefile Stephen Warren
2012-10-22 16:43 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH V4 2/3] fs: separate CONFIG_FS_{FAT, EXT4} from CONFIG_CMD_{FAT, EXT*} Stephen Warren
2012-10-22 16:43 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH V4 3/3] fs: add filesystem switch libary, implement ls and fsload commands Stephen Warren
2012-10-30 11:05 ` Andreas Bießmann
2012-10-30 16:47 ` Tom Rini
2012-10-30 18:29 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH] fs/fs.c: fix fs_set_blk_dev() for manual relocation Andreas Bießmann
2012-10-30 18:41 ` Stephen Warren
2012-10-30 22:19 ` Tom Rini
2012-10-31 9:42 ` Andreas Bießmann
2012-10-30 17:50 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: handle CONFIG_NEEDS_MANUAL_RELOC Stephen Warren
2012-10-31 9:47 ` Andreas Bießmann
2012-11-04 18:28 ` Tom Rini
2012-10-30 20:23 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH V4 3/3] fs: add filesystem switch libary, implement ls and fsload commands Benoît Thébaudeau
2012-10-30 21:18 ` Stephen Warren
2012-10-30 21:29 ` Tom Rini
2012-10-30 21:59 ` Benoît Thébaudeau
2012-10-30 22:01 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2012-10-31 10:43 ` Andreas Bießmann
2012-10-31 17:03 ` Stephen Warren
2012-10-29 22:55 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH V4 1/3] fs: delete unused Makefile Tom Rini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50904E30.6070907@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox