Hi, Evgeniy Ivanov wrote:
> > I have not checked if their readdir() API can be applicable our > > current ls implementation, but what do you think about this idea, > > i.e. file system independent ls command using fs dependent readdir() ops? > > > > readdir looks better as fs_ops, but if it requires too much > > modification in our current implementation, ls in fs_ops > > could be a interim workaround. > > I don't like having ls in fs_ops either and I agree, that readdir > similar to the OpenBSD's one would be better. > Ideally, libsa (at least fs_ops) shouldn't produce any output, it's up > to boot loader to printf. > > The difference is in two parts: fs dependent part should work with an > external buffer (OpenBSD way, they copy name and then do stat) or > return a dirent pointer into internal buffer (to have the output they > get, calling stat() is required, but to keep our current ls output it > might be skipped). The second is printing the data. Ls should use > readdir(), but If we leave it in libsa::ls() we will not have any > benefits from readdir(). And moving it to the bootloaders is not a > very easy task, because there're plenty of them (and no way to test > changes for non-i386 arch). > > I think we could leave current approach as interim workaround. Ok, I agree current OpenBSD's libsa readdir implementation (without opendir/seekdir/closedir) is incomplete to bother to integrate only for ls ops. I'll integrate your patch this weekend unless someone provides better alternative implementation. --- Izumi Tsutsui
