2011-08-22 03:25:34

by Ivan Shmakov

Subject: e2p_blocks_count () vs. ext2fs_blocks_count ()

Apparently, e2p_blocks_count (), a ‘static’ function in
lib/e2p/ls.c, duplicates the public ext2fs_blocks_count () one
(lib/ext2fs/blknum.c) as of d4c0d8e5. The same holds for
e2p_r_blocks_count () and e2p_free_blocks_count ().

The code is, as it seems, exactly the same.

I wonder, isn't there a problem?

TIA.

--
FSF associate member #7257 Coming soon: Software Freedom Day
http://mail.sf-day.org/lists/listinfo/ planning-ru (ru), sfd-discuss (en)

2011-08-22 16:33:30

by Theodore Ts'o

Subject: Re: e2p_blocks_count () vs. ext2fs_blocks_count ()

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:25:19AM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> Apparently, e2p_blocks_count (), a ‘static’ function in
> lib/e2p/ls.c, duplicates the public ext2fs_blocks_count () one
> (lib/ext2fs/blknum.c) as of d4c0d8e5. The same holds for
> e2p_r_blocks_count () and e2p_free_blocks_count ().
>
> The code is, as it seems, exactly the same.
>
> I wonder, isn't there a problem?

That's deliberate; the goal was to make libe2p not dependent on
libext2fs, so that programs such as lsattr don't need to pull in
libext2fs.

- Ted

2011-08-22 16:48:34

by Ivan Shmakov

Subject: Re: e2p_blocks_count () vs. ext2fs_blocks_count ()

>>>>> Ted Ts'o <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:25:19AM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

>> Apparently, e2p_blocks_count (), a ‘static’ function in
>> lib/e2p/ls.c, duplicates the public ext2fs_blocks_count () one
>> (lib/ext2fs/blknum.c) as of d4c0d8e5. The same holds for
>> e2p_r_blocks_count () and e2p_free_blocks_count ().

>> The code is, as it seems, exactly the same.

>> I wonder, isn't there a problem?

> That's deliberate; the goal was to make libe2p not dependent on
> libext2fs, so that programs such as lsattr don't need to pull in
> libext2fs.

ACK. Thanks.

--
FSF associate member #7257 Coming soon: Software Freedom Day
http://mail.sf-day.org/lists/listinfo/ planning-ru (ru), sfd-discuss (en)