extattr_set_* return type

[mdf at FreeBSD.org]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 12:51 PM, <mdf at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:24 AM, John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:30:21 pm mdf at freebsd.org wrote:
>> > Despite the man page correctly describing the return value for
>> > extattr_set_*, I thought recently that they returned 0/-1 for
>> > success/failure, not the number of bytes written, like write(2).  This
>> is
>> > because extattr_set_* is declared as returning an int, not an ssize_t.
>> >  Both extattr_get and extattr_list return ssize_t, so this is
>> inconsistent.
>> >
>> > The patch at
>> >
>> http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/0001-Fix-return-type-of-extattr_set_-and-fix-
>> rmextattr-8-.patchfixes<http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/0001-Fix-return-type-of-extattr_set_-and-fix-rmextattr-8-.patchfixes>
>> > this.  It compiles but it's untested.
>> >
>> > I don't think any compat shims are needed, since an old application will
>> > still sign extend and this will work (it's very unlikely anyone does
>> > extattr_set for 2GB or more).
>> >
>> > If anyone actually uses extattr on 64-bit, please test a new kernel but
>> old
>> > userspace to be sure nothing is broken.  I plan to commit this next
>> week if
>> > I don't hear otherwise.
>>
>> Hmm, the patch URL doesn't work, but please fix this.  There is an old
>> thread
>> we are both on from Dec 2011 where I ran into the same thing.  I also
>> think we
>> don't need compat shims.
>>
>
> The version in my outbox looked right; I don't know how it got mangled.
>
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/0001-Fix-return-type-of-extattr_set_-and-fix-
> <http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/0001-Fix-return-type-of-extattr_set_-and-fix-rmextattr-8-.patchfixes>
> rmextattr-8-.patch<http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/0001-Fix-return-type-of-extattr_set_-and-fix-rmextattr-8-.patchfixes>
>

And I found the old thread:

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2011-December/030567.html

I guess my memory really does just suck.   I now remember what I posted,
but only after reading it again. :-)

Cheers,
matthew