On 8/7/23 23:08, Karim Taha wrote:
From: Stacey Son <s...@freebsd.org>
Implement the following syscalls:
stat(2)
lstat(2)
fstat(2)
fstatat(2)
nstat
nfstat
nlstat
Signed-off-by: Stacey Son <s...@freebsd.org>
Signed-off-by: Karim Taha <kariem.taha...@gmail.com>
Why are all of these in os-stat.h instead of os-stat.c?
Is this attempting to avoid clang's warning for unused static inline function
in a c file?
+/* stat(2) */
+static inline abi_long do_freebsd11_stat(abi_long arg1, abi_long arg2)
+{
+ abi_long ret;
+ void *p;
+ struct freebsd11_stat st;
+
+ LOCK_PATH(p, arg1);
+ ret = get_errno(freebsd11_stat(path(p), &st));
+ UNLOCK_PATH(p, arg1);
+ if (!is_error(ret)) {
+ ret = h2t_freebsd11_stat(arg2, &st);
+ }
+ return ret;
+}
The patch ordering is poor, because freebsd11_stat is used here but not introduced until
patch 23, and do_freebsd11_stat itself is not used until patch 30.
And yet you delay compilation of os-stat.c until patch 29. Patch 29 is either too early
or too late, depending on the viewpoint.
If os-stat.c compilation was enabled earlier, it would require you to order all of the
patches such that os-stat.c will always compile.
If os-stat.c compilation was enabled later (indeed last), you would not need to mark this
function 'static inline' in order to avoid unused function warnings prior to their use in
patches 30-33.
I prefer the ordering in which os-stat.c always compiles. This probably requires patches
23-27 be ordered first, and patches 30-33 be merged with patches 18-22. There is no need
for *any* of these functions to be marked inline -- leave that choice to the compiler.
r~
