lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/9] xen/pciback: Return proper error code from sscanf.
>>> On 29.09.11 at 21:52, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> . instead of just hardcoding it to be -EINVAL.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> ---
> drivers/xen/xen-pciback/pci_stub.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/xen-pciback/pci_stub.c
> b/drivers/xen/xen-pciback/pci_stub.c
> index 32d6891..d985b65 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/xen-pciback/pci_stub.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/xen-pciback/pci_stub.c
> @@ -868,7 +868,7 @@ static inline int str_to_slot(const char *buf, int
> *domain, int *bus,
> if (err == 4)
> return 0;
> else if (err < 0)
> - return -EINVAL;
> + return err;
>
> /* try again without domain */
> *domain = 0;

This should then also be done for the final return from the function:

return err < 0 ? err : -EINVAL;

But: Where did you read that {v,}sscanf() would return -E... values in
hypothetical error cases? The C standard says it would return EOF
when reaching the end of the input string before doing the first
conversion; lib/vsprintf.c doesn't do so, and also doesn't say it might
return -E... codes. Bottom line is that I think the code is more correct
the way it is without this change.
Jan



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-30 09:47    [W:0.110 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site