On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 04:55:10PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > > [EOVERFLOW] > > The file is a regular file, nbyte is greater than 0, the starting > > position is before the end-of-file, and the starting position is > > greater than or equal to the offset maximum established in the open > > file description associated with fildes. > > > > That's not _exactly_ what's going on here, but it's pretty close. And is > > what you would get if you implemented read_exactly() in terms of > > something like pread(). > > All that really matters is the strerror() that the user would see.
Agreed, though I didn't think those were necessarily standardized. > For EOVERFLOW, that is > > Value too large to be stored in data type Interestingly that does not seem to be a good description for the case POSIX describes above. > For EILSEQ, it is > > Illegal byte sequence > > Neither is perfect, but the latter seems like a better fit for the kind > of file format errors we're describing here. I find that one actively misleading. It's not the bytes we saw, it's the lack of them. > Of course, it's even > better if we fix the callers and don't try to wedge this into errno. Yes. This patch is just a stop-gap. Perhaps we should abandon it entirely. But I couldn't find a way to fix all the callers. If you have a function that just returns "-1" when it sees a read_in_full() error, how does _its_ caller tell the difference? I guess the answer is that the interface of the sub-function calling read_in_full() needs to change. > If you are okay with the too-long/too-short confusion in EOVERFLOW, then > there is EMSGSIZE: > > Message too long I don't really like that one either. I actually prefer "0" of the all of the options discussed. At least it is immediately clear that it is not a syscall error. -Peff
