[Bug 1695] bytes_transfered = rtems_rfs_rtems_error

[bugzilla-daemon at rtems.org]

https://www.rtems.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1695

--- Comment #6 from Gedare <giddyup44 at yahoo.com> 2010-09-01 10:16:42 CDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > 
> > The question at hand is whether it makes sense to say bytes transferred is
> > always either 0 or -1.  This implies there really is no data transfer ever. So
> > the variable name bytes_transfered is a bite of a misnomer (and a misspelling,
> > there should be two r's).
> 
> I am a little confused. Is the name (excluding the spelling) the issue or the
> fact -1 is being set ? The setting of -1 is determined by the read call defined
> in the standards. The call to here is wrapped by the read call in libcsupport
> and is itself a wrapper for the RFS implementation to RTEMS.
> 
> Yes it is a spelling mistake and I am happy to fix that. I could have returned
> -1 rather than set bytes_transferred but I would have had to cut and paste the
> clean up code that closes the inode handle and unlocks the file system.
> 
> The call to rtems_rfs_rtems_error lets a trace message appear when debugging is
> turned on.

Sorry I think I added even a little more confusion by bringing up the spelling
mistake.  My understanding is that assigning a negative value to
bytes_transfered does not make any sense -- unless you are reference counting
some bi-directional traffic, you shouldn't have a negative number for a size
value.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.rtems.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.