[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: fixing compat_12 getdents
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 09:53:46PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> >also, EINVAL doesn't seem like a great error code for this
> >condition. it's not an input parameter that's causing the
> >error, but rather that the required output format cannot express
> >the data to be returned. I think solaris uses EOVERFLOW for
> >this kind of situation, and ERANGE doesn't seem too bad either.
> >any opinions on that?
> There's also E2BIG, but I don't think it fits. ERANGE is
> documented in terms of "the available space", while EOVERFLOW is
> documented in terms of "a numeric result". So perhaps EOVERFLOW
> for "integer is too large to fit in N bits", and ERANGE for
> "string is too long to fit in N bytes"? Or vice versa?
> Somebody(TM) should go through the errno(2) documentation and make
> the descriptions more generic, and add guidance for choosing which
> code to return.
Then people get upset because they say "function foo() isn't allowed
to set errno to 'bar'".
It is rather a shame that posix tries to list all errno a function
can return, not just those for explicit 'likely' (ie normal)
non-success returns froma function.
For the inode number, it is a slight shame that a 'fake' value
can't be returned - maybe 0xffffffff - since a lot of the
code won't really care.
More likely to be an issue for the stat() functions - but not much code
Well not much that you are really going to run compat versions of.
There are issues getting unique dev/inode pairs anyway for some
filesystems (and things like union mounts).
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost
Main Index |
Thread Index |