Re: [9fans] read(2) problem on p9p?

[EBo <ebo@sandien.com>]

> No, you shouldn't send the whole code base.
> You should take the time to cut the program down to
> a short demonstration of the problem before posting to
> the list.  9 times out of 10 you find, as was the case
> here, that the problem is not where you thought it was,
> and you avoid the list post entirely, saving the time of
> the many readers and your time too, since you get the
> answer faster.

I agree, but to get that specific test to work (writing to a file that is
synthetically generated my the system) requires running against the server
I'm working on, which in turn requires almost all the code I have to date
(minus the other regression tests).  I know that this is WAY to much to
send the list without a very good reason.  All I was asking is that if
there was something obvious wrong.  In most cases I do take the time to
trim it down to a standalone case (like I did with dirreadall failing when
run on in-memory trees).

The problem turned out to be that I wrote "add tst_var type int" to ctl --
which creates an int variable (which is 4 bytes).  All of my later tests
assumed I was working with strings.  So, a seek or pread fixed the obvious
problem, but the underlying one length was due to it was doing exactly what
I asked it to ;-)  So, this discussion pointed the way to two other bugs.

  EBo --