I (Raul) wrote::
> > --- linux-1.3.29/fs/msdos/dir.c.dist Thu Oct 26 18:11:01 1995
> > +++ linux-1.3.29/fs/msdos/dir.c Thu Oct 26 18:12:34 1995
> > @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
> > filp->f_pos = 0;
> > }
> > if (filp->f_pos & (sizeof(struct msdos_dir_entry)-1))
> > - return -ENOENT;
> > + return NULL;
> > bh = NULL;
> > while ((ino = msdos_get_entry(inode,&filp->f_pos,&bh,&de)) > -1) {
> > if (!IS_FREE(de->name)
Linus replied:
> The above doesn't look like the right fix: -ENOENT may not be the
> right value to return, but the above return value is meant to catch
> a bogus file position pointer rather than catch the end of the
> file. A better error might be -EINVAL for that case (it means that
> somebody did a seek with a bad value at some point).
I'm sorry, I didn't pay close enough attention.
However, looking at my documentation on readdir, I think this should
be EBADF.
Me:
> > --- linux-1.3.29/fs/umsdos/dir.c.dist Thu Oct 26 18:11:02 1995
> > +++ linux-1.3.29/fs/umsdos/dir.c Thu Oct 26 18:13:51 1995
> > @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@
> > }
> > /*
> > Read count directory entries from directory filp
> > - Return a negative value from linux/errno.h.
> > + Return a NULL to indicate end of file
> > Return > 0 if success (the amount of byte written to dirent)
> > */
> > static int UMSDOS_readdir(
> > @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@
> > }
> > PRINTK (("UMSDOS_readdir out %d count %d pos %Ld\n",ret,count
> > ,filp->f_pos));
> > - return count == 0 ? -ENOENT : ret;
> > + return count == 0 ? NULL : ret;
> > }
> > /*
> > Complete the inode content with info from the EMD file
Linus:
> How about
> return count ? : ret;
> instead? At the very least a NULL is definitely wrong, as we're
> returning an integer, not a pointer.
Oops.
Yes, thanks.
--
Raul
