lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] a few small mconf improvements
    On 09/05/06, Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
    >
    >
    > On Sun, 7 May 2006, Jesper Juhl wrote:
    >
    > > - rename main() arguments from "ac"/"av" to the more common "argc"/"argv".
    >
    > conf.c and qconf.cc do the same, it's a personal preference.
    >
    Fair enough.


    > > - when unlinking lxdialog.scrltmp, the return value of unlink() is not
    > > checked. The patch adds a check of the return value and bails out if
    > > unlink() fails for any reason other than ENOENT.
    >
    > The check is not needed, the worst that can happen is a misbehaving
    > lxdialog and you certainly have bigger problems than this, if the unlink
    > should fail. In the long term this should go away anyway.
    >
    Ok, your call.


    > > - if the sscanf() call in conf() fails and stat==0 && type=='t', then
    > > we'll end up dereferencing a NULL 'sym' in sym_is_choice(). The patch
    > > adds a NULL check of 'sym' to that path and bails out with a big fat
    > > error message if that should ever happen (better than just crashing
    > > IMHO).
    >
    > That error message is as useful to the normal user as a segfault - mconf
    > doesn't work. Since it shouldn't happen, this check adds no real value,
    > the user still has to provide enough information to reproduce the problem
    > and at this point it makes no difference, whether I get this message or I
    > see where it stops with gdb.
    >
    I disagree a little here. It may not really matter to you if you get a
    report of a crash or if you get a report that mconf spewed an error
    message, but to the user who experiences it (should it ever happen)
    there's a difference - it's either "the damn thing crashed on me, what
    a piece of crap" or "the damn thing crashed on me, but at least it
    told me something went wrong, so now I can report it"... Printing an
    error and exiting cleanly is IMHO always preferable to a crash - users
    respond better to that and it's the "right" thing to do.

    What about the other bits of the patch? are those OK?
    Want me to send an updated patch - or?


    --
    Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
    Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
    Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-05-13 23:01    [W:0.025 / U:90.568 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site