On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 07:52:17 -0600 Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/01/2013 12:31 AM, Fam Zheng wrote: > > Fix it by calling strtoll instead, which will report ERANGE as expected. > > > > (HMP) block_set_io_throttle ide0-hd0 999999999999999999 0 0 0 0 0 > > (HMP) block_set_io_throttle ide0-hd0 9999999999999999999 0 0 0 0 0 > > number too large > > (HMP) block_set_io_throttle ide0-hd0 99999999999999999999 0 0 0 0 0 > > number too large > > Your change causes this error message: > (HMP) block_set_io_throttle ide0-hd0 -99999999999999999999 0 0 0 0 0 > number too large > > Does the "too large" mean in magnitude (correct message) or in value > (misleading message, as any negative number is smaller in value than our > minimum of 0)? > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> > > --- > > monitor.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c > > index 5dc0aa9..7bfb469 100644 > > --- a/monitor.c > > +++ b/monitor.c > > @@ -3286,7 +3286,7 @@ static int64_t expr_unary(Monitor *mon) > > break; > > default: > > errno = 0; > > - n = strtoull(pch, &p, 0); > > + n = strtoll(pch, &p, 0); > > I'm worried that this will break callers that treat their argument as > unsigned, and where the full range of unsigned input was desirable. At > this point, it's probably safer to do a case-by-case analysis of all > callers that use expr_unary() to decide which callers must reject > negative values, instead of making the parser reject numbers that it > previously accepted, thus changing the behavior of callers that treated > the result as unsigned. > Fam, what motivated this change? Is anyone entering such big numbers for block_set_io_throttle?