You keep wide-replying, and I read openafs-devel. Anyhow: On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Harald Barth wrote:
> > > Changing it is certainly possible, but doing so on the basis of that > > documentation is weak. > > Study of ancient source shows that the documentation has been out of > sync with reality (if it has ever been in sync) since at least 3.3. I > suggest we define the following as the current behavior: So calling it a defect on the basis of documentation you also admit is out of date is sort of silly, isn't it? > Then we can discuss if the pioctl should be extended in the following > way: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > The first afs_int32 value in the outbuffer contains 0 for a get call > and the number of sysname strings for a set call. It it is a set, the > following bytes have to contain the same number of null terminated > strings with the sysnames which will be set. > > Both the set and get variation of the call fills in the inbuffer > according to the following: The first afs_int32 value in the inbuffer > is the number of sysnames if there is a sysname list in the buffer, 0 > otherwise. The sysname list contains the same number of null > terminated strings directly after the afs_int32 value. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > or if we should keep the existing call interface and have a new call > for sysname lists instead. > > Comments on my wording of the definitions and what to do and if I read > the source correctly are of course welcome. I prefer the former but could be pushed the other way. Since Ted McCabe implemented this originally, perhaps he has some comment? -D _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
