xiaoxiang781216 commented on code in PR #14901:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14901#discussion_r1856566565
##########
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
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/blob/master/INVIOLABLES.md doesn't prohibit
to patch the 3rd project. Sometimes, it's necessary to patch their code.
> because they broke "other people's cases".
Reverting patch also broke "other people's cases" too. @crafcat7 create
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/11729 because @jturnsek ask this feature.
> please don't blame me about reporting regressions and submitted reverts.
please blame people who introduced the regressions instead.
>
Sorry, I don't think that patch the code is a regression.
> anyway, once the next version of littlefs is released, i guess we can use
[littlefs-project/littlefs#1004](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?
yes, my suggestion is always to keep both parties happy.
--
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
