On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:31:11AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:18:58 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:49 PM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > Hmm, if these functions are expected to operate like 'write(2)' and are > > > supposed to return the number of bytes written, shouldn't their return > > > value > > > be 'ssize_t' instead of 'int'? It looks like the system calls themselves > > > already do the right thing in setting td_retval[] (they assign a ssize_t > > > to it > > > and td_retval[0] can hold a ssize_t on all of our current platforms). It > > > would seem that the only change would be to the header and probably > > > syscalls.master. I guess this would require a symver bump to fix though. > > > > An extended attribute larger than 2GB is a programming abuse, though. > > Technically int may not be 32 bits but it is on all supported > > platforms now. > > Today it is an abuse. In the 90's a 64-bit off_t was considered an abuse by > some. :) > > The type should match the documented behavior. On OS X the set operation > doesn't return a size but instead returns a simple success/failure (0 or -1) > for which an int is appropriate. However, the FreeBSD API documents that it > operates like write and consumes the buffer. Note that the size of the > buffer passed to the 'set' and 'get' operations is a size_t, not an int, and > the 'get' operations already return a ssize_t, not an int.
Note that read(2)/write(2) do return int. I still have WIP patch to fix this, but after some conversations with Bruce I am not sure it is worth finishing.
pgpGVG18c7Kk7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
