[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [coreutils] Feature: Introduce fiemap copy to cp(1) and mv(1) v2

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: [coreutils] Feature: Introduce fiemap copy to cp(1) and mv(1) v2
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:52:33 +0200

jeff.liu wrote:
> Hello All,
> Please ignore the previous patchsets, there is an issue I just fixed.

Please summarize incremental changes (patch and/or text) so we don't
have to guess or generate them ourselves and inspect.

> The revised version were shown as following:
>>From b3fc14ca851c6717959a984639f60a5cf6cf05a5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jie Liu <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:31:27 +0800
> +              last = 1;
> +            }
> +
> +          char buf[optimal_buf_size];
> +          while (0 < ext_len)
> +            {
> +           memset (buf, 0, sizeof (buf));
> +
> +              /* Avoid reading into the holes if the left extent
> +                 length is shorter than the optimal buffer size.  */
> +              if (ext_len < optimal_buf_size)
> +                optimal_buf_size = ext_len;
> +
> +           ssize_t n_read = read (src_fd, buf, optimal_buf_size);
> +              if (n_read < 0)
> +                {

Notice the strange-looking indentation above.
That is because you've indented with a mix of TABs and spaces.
If you were to run "make syntax-check", it would fail due
to the presence of those TABs in indentation.

Remove them and not only will the test pass, but your quoted
patches will be more readable, too.

Please read the guidelines in HACKING.
Here's the part that tells you to run "make syntax-check":

    Run "make syntax-check", or even "make distcheck"
    Making either of those targets runs many integrity and
    project-specific policy-conformance tests.  For example, the former
    ensures that you add no trailing blanks and no uses of certain deprecated
    functions.  The latter performs all "syntax-check" tests, and also
    ensures that the build completes with no warnings when using a certain
    set of gcc -W... options.  Don't even bother running "make distcheck"
    unless you have a reasonably up to date installation including recent
    versions of gcc and the linux kernel, and modern GNU tools.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]