On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:24 AM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:30:21 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote: > > Despite the man page correctly describing the return value for > > extattr_set_*, I thought recently that they returned 0/-1 for > > success/failure, not the number of bytes written, like write(2). This is > > because extattr_set_* is declared as returning an int, not an ssize_t. > > Both extattr_get and extattr_list return ssize_t, so this is > inconsistent. > > > > The patch at > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/0001-Fix-return-type-of-extattr_set_-and-fix- > rmextattr-8-.patchfixes > > this. It compiles but it's untested. > > > > I don't think any compat shims are needed, since an old application will > > still sign extend and this will work (it's very unlikely anyone does > > extattr_set for 2GB or more). > > > > If anyone actually uses extattr on 64-bit, please test a new kernel but > old > > userspace to be sure nothing is broken. I plan to commit this next week > if > > I don't hear otherwise. > > Hmm, the patch URL doesn't work, but please fix this. There is an old > thread > we are both on from Dec 2011 where I ran into the same thing. I also > think we > don't need compat shims. > The version in my outbox looked right; I don't know how it got mangled. http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/0001-Fix-return-type-of-extattr_set_-and-fix- <http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/0001-Fix-return-type-of-extattr_set_-and-fix-rmextattr-8-.patchfixes> rmextattr-8-.patch<http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/0001-Fix-return-type-of-extattr_set_-and-fix-rmextattr-8-.patchfixes> Cheers, matthew _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
