On 08/01/2013 12:31 AM, Fam Zheng wrote: > Fix it by calling strtoll instead, which will report ERANGE as expected. > > (HMP) block_set_io_throttle ide0-hd0 999999999999999999 0 0 0 0 0 > (HMP) block_set_io_throttle ide0-hd0 9999999999999999999 0 0 0 0 0 > number too large > (HMP) block_set_io_throttle ide0-hd0 99999999999999999999 0 0 0 0 0 > number too large
Your change causes this error message: (HMP) block_set_io_throttle ide0-hd0 -99999999999999999999 0 0 0 0 0 number too large Does the "too large" mean in magnitude (correct message) or in value (misleading message, as any negative number is smaller in value than our minimum of 0)? > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> > --- > monitor.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c > index 5dc0aa9..7bfb469 100644 > --- a/monitor.c > +++ b/monitor.c > @@ -3286,7 +3286,7 @@ static int64_t expr_unary(Monitor *mon) > break; > default: > errno = 0; > - n = strtoull(pch, &p, 0); > + n = strtoll(pch, &p, 0); I'm worried that this will break callers that treat their argument as unsigned, and where the full range of unsigned input was desirable. At this point, it's probably safer to do a case-by-case analysis of all callers that use expr_unary() to decide which callers must reject negative values, instead of making the parser reject numbers that it previously accepted, thus changing the behavior of callers that treated the result as unsigned. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
