Hi Suriyan,
On 17 October 2014 13:17, Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Simon,
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
+Tom for the question below re return values
Hi,
On 8 October 2014 15:54, Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Suriyan,
On 8 October 2014 14:23, Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com wrote:
The commands fatls/ext4ls give -ve values when dealing with files > 2GB. The commands fatsize/ext4size do not update the variable filesize for these files.
To deal with this, the functions *_size have been modified to take a second parameter of type "* off_t" which is then populated. The return value of the *_size function is then only used to determine error conditions.
That seems like a sensible idea to me.
Hello Simon, I got the reply from Pavel as I was writing this. So, what do you think of just changing the return value of these functions to off64_t ?
I don't have strong views on this but I believe it is slightly better to use a consistent error return value from all functions (int) as you have done and put loff_t or whatever as a parameter. Even for the size functions this seems better once we move to handling >2GB or >4GB.
But yes a 64-bit value seems prudent despite the overhead.
I also do think that having a consistent error return value from all functions (int) seems more clean. Hence, I am going forward in working on a patch towards that goal. I am also introducing automated tests cases in test/ as you have suggested (in a different thread). BTW, I shall be using (loff_t *), for returning the actual size in the extra parameter to the function calls.
That sounds good, thanks.
Regards, Simon