Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:18:41 +0800 | From | Cong Wang <> | Subject | Re: [net-next PATCH v5 2/3] sysctl: add proc_do_large_bitmap |
| |
Cong Wang wrote: > Octavian Purdila wrote: >> On Wednesday 24 February 2010 07:24:00 you wrote: >>> Octavian Purdila wrote: >>>> Here is a new version of this patch which fixes both the comma and >>>> invalid value issues, please give it a try. >>> Sorry, it is even worse. :( >>> >>>> [net-next PATCH v5 2/3] sysctl: add proc_do_large_bitmap >>>> >>>> The new function can be used to read/write large bitmaps via /proc. A >>>> comma separated range format is used for compact output and input >>>> (e.g. 1,3-4,10-10). >>> Writing "50000-50100" gets EINVAL, it should be success. >>> Writing "50000,50100" fails too. >>> >> >> Hmm, they don't fail for me :-/ >> >>> Please, at least, do some basic testing. >>> >> >> I do test them, I've attached the current test batch I was using. >> >> Anyways, today I've noticed that "1,2 3" does not fail and even more >> importantly the final value is "3". >> Being that I don't see a way of fixing this without not acknowledging >> 1,2 even though we will do set these values, I revisited the "1 2 3" >> issue. And I don't understand why this is actually an issue, we are >> just being more permissive (i.e. we are allowing as separators both >> whitespaces and ,). >> >> > > Oops, after rechecking my test case, it is actually my test case's > fault. Sorry for this. I will fix my test case and run it again. >
Hi,
Still a small problem, if I do write(fd, "50000,50100", 12) I will get a return value of 11, which should mean 11 bytes are written, however, actually only the first 6 bytes are accepted.
The rest looks better now.
Or am I missing something here? :)
Thanks!
| |