yamt commented on code in PR #14901:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14901#discussion_r1856525559
##########
fs/littlefs/lfs_vfs.c:
##########
@@ -816,16 +834,31 @@ static int littlefs_fchstat(FAR const struct file *filep,
inode = filep->f_inode;
fs = inode->i_private;
+ path = lib_get_pathbuffer();
+ if (path == NULL)
+ {
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+
/* Call LFS to get file size */
+ ret = littlefs_convert_result(lfs_file_path(&fs->lfs, &priv->file, path,
Review Comment:
sigh. let me repeat my claim again. these local patches should not have been
merged in the first place because they broke "other people's cases".
please don't blame me about reporting regressions and submitted reverts.
please blame people who introduced the regressions instead.
anyway, once the next version of littlefs is released, i guess we can use
https://github.com/littlefs-project/littlefs/pull/1004 to replace
lfs_util.patch.
at that point, i guess we can provide a switch between:
* 2.5.1 with nuttx local patches
* 2.9.4 with no patches
how do you think?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@nuttx.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
