Re: [PATCH] dd - support for reading of full blocks

Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Monday 21 July 2008 12:53:08 you wrote: > ... >> Ok, description improved. Also applied some Jim's recommendations >> from another RFE - new patch in attachment... > > Thanks for adjusting it. > Here's your patch

Re: [PATCH] dd - support for reading of full blocks

Kamil Dudka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 21 July 2008 12:53:08 you wrote: ... > Ok, description improved. Also applied some Jim's recommendations > from another RFE - new patch in attachment... Thanks for adjusting it. Here's your patch with a slightly modified log message (an "*" goes o

Re: [PATCH] dd - support for reading of full blocks

On Monday 21 July 2008 12:53:08 you wrote: > Much better thanks. The following description might be improved though? > > "Read full blocks from input if possible. If 'read' call is terminated > during read of input block, it will be called again for the remainder > input. This flag can be used only

Re: [PATCH] dd - support for reading of full blocks

On Friday 18 July 2008 03:54:41 pm you wrote: > As for the new name, iflag=block would be my preference if it weren't > for the existence of conv=block/unblock and iflag=nonblock. Too much > room for misunderstanding. > > I'd be happy with either of the following, with a slight preference for > th

Re: [PATCH] dd - support for reading of full blocks

Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pádraig Brady wrote: >> Kamil Dudka wrote: >>> as solution to rhbz #431997 and #449263 I propose patch for dd - support for >>> reading of full blocks. This support is activated with dd parameter >>> conv=fullblk. This patch has no effect if parameter conv

Re: [PATCH] dd - support for reading of full blocks

Paul Eggert wrote: > Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> or conv=wait, though I do have a strong preference >> for iflag=block as it's the most accurate. > > I dunno, iflag= is supposed to be symmetric with oflag=. Well there is no harm in having that oflag as well to handle short wri

Re: [PATCH] dd - support for reading of full blocks

Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > or conv=wait, though I do have a strong preference > for iflag=block as it's the most accurate. I dunno, iflag= is supposed to be symmetric with oflag=. This "feels" more like a conversion, so conv= seems more appropriate. > Also would there be any pos

Re: [PATCH] dd - support for reading of full blocks

Pádraig Brady wrote: > Kamil Dudka wrote: >> Hello, >> >> as solution to rhbz #431997 and #449263 I propose patch for dd - support for >> reading of full blocks. This support is activated with dd parameter >> conv=fullblk. This patch has no effect if parameter conv=fullblk is omitted. > > This f

Re: [PATCH] dd - support for reading of full blocks

On Thursday 17 July 2008 15:17:48 you wrote: > I'm not sure I like the conv=fullblk syntax though. > Here are alternatives in my order of preference: > iflag=block There has been already conv=block parameter, so I think this similarity may confuse user. > conv=fill Ok, let the parameter be conv=

Re: [PATCH] dd - support for reading of full blocks

Kamil Dudka wrote: > Hello, > > as solution to rhbz #431997 and #449263 I propose patch for dd - support for > reading of full blocks. This support is activated with dd parameter > conv=fullblk. This patch has no effect if parameter conv=fullblk is omitted. This feature makes a lot of sense. I'

[PATCH] dd - support for reading of full blocks

Hello, as solution to rhbz #431997 and #449263 I propose patch for dd - support for reading of full blocks. This support is activated with dd parameter conv=fullblk. This patch has no effect if parameter conv=fullblk is omitted. Greetings Kamil Dudka From 3f2ac49b58de62a44417cd5e5c72ee5b6759b6f