Hi!
> When we used tst_mkfs() to build a file system with extra mkfs options, like
> that:
> tst_mkfs(NULL, device, "ext4", "-b 1024"); /* device is /dev/loop0 */
>
> It will output some error message, like that:
> TINFO : Formatting /dev/loop0 with ext4 extra opts='-b 1024'
> mke2fs 1.42.7 (21-Jan-2013)
> mkfs.ext4: invalid blocks '/dev/loop0' on device 'ext4'
>
> In tst_mkfs()'s implementations:
> argv is defined as below statments:
> const char *argv[] = {"mkfs", "-t", fs_type, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL};
> So in the above mkfs case,
> the argv's value will be {"mkfs", "-t", "ext4", "-b 1024",
> "/dev/loop0", NULL};
> then when finally calling execvp(argv[0], (char *const *)argv), the number
> of
> arguments is 5. It's like that we call (mkfs -t ext4 "-b 1024" /dev/loop0) in
> shell,
> but the right command shoule be (mkfs -t ext4 -b 1024 /dev/loop0 # 6 args).
> Of course, the true reason is that we didn't assign correct arguments to argv
> array
> towards extra mkfs options.
>
> Here we use system(3) to avoid this problem. We only pass the command
> string
> to system(3), avoid parsing extra mkfs options and assigning them to argv
> array ourselvs.
NACK. The code gets ugly this way.
What I would rather is to change the fs_opts to array of strings so
it could be called as:
const char *const opts[] = {
"-b", "1024", NULL,
};
tst_mkfs(NULL, device, "ext4", opts);
The change in tst_mkfs() would be fairly simple, we would create argv[]
array which size would depend on number of options passed and set the
pointers accordingly.
--
Cyril Hrubis
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
Read the Whitepaper.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121051231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
