lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] readdir mess


On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Al Viro wrote:
>
> you've just lost e.g. -EIO for getdents(). And if you bail out on
> non-zero return value from vfs_readdir(), you are back to -EINVAL
> on full buffer.

Btw, this whole sentence, and the one from your next email seems to really
show a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole readdir() error handling:

> PS: we might get away with both, if we used _positive_ values as well.
> E.g. have getdents() filldir return 1 if we are out of buffer *and*
> have ->previous != NULL (and -EINVAL if we are out of buffer on the
> first call)... And have some other positive constant for "->readdir()
> didn't feel like going all the way to the end of directory".

We *must* handle partial returns by returning "success". And we do,
except for our _confusion_ about ->readdir() returning error and that
somehow "overriding" the fact that it already returned non-errors earlier
through the callback.

All your blathering about "positive values as well" seems to ttoally
misunderstand how readdir() works. We absolutely do *not* need positive
return values, because the fact is, the only positive return value we ever
need is the "we already filled _earlier_ buffers". And that's the one
that we already do.

The fact is, NO ERROR VALUE CAN POSSIBLY MATTER if we already returned one
or more entries to getdents/readdir(). We should return a success value.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-12 22:25    [W:0.174 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site