lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] USB: realtek_cr: fix return check for dma functions
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:54:28AM -0700, Tom Rix wrote:
>
> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alan Stern wrote:

> >>> Instead of changing all these call sites, wouldn't it be a lot easier
> >>> just to change rts51x_read_mem() to make it always return a negative
> >>> value (such as -EIO) when there's an error?
> >>>
> >>> Alan Stern
> >> I thought about that but there was already existing (retval !=
> >> STATUS_SUCCESS) checks for these calls.
> > The only values that routine currently returns are
> > USB_STOR_TRANSPORT_ERROR, -EIO, and 0. None of the callers distinguish
> > between the first two values, so you can just change the first to the
> > second.
> >
> > Note that STATUS_SUCCESS is simply 0.
>
> Yes, i noted all of these already. My change is consistent with the
> existing correct checks.  consistency is important.  returning a neg
> value to reuse the exiting check should mean the STATUS_SUCCESS != 0
> checks are changed to neg check.

Do you mean the "retval == STATUS_SUCCESS" checks? Those checks would
end up doing exactly the same thing as they do now, since
USB_STOR_TRANSPORT_ERROR and -EIO are both different from 0.

Yes, it is true that consistency is important. But correctness is more
important than consistency.

>  i can do this larger change if
> required.

Let me put it this way: Suppose you changed the USB_STOR_TRANSPORT_ERROR
in rts51x_read_mem() to -EIO, without changing anything else. Wouldn't
that fix the problem reported by the clang static analysis? If not, why
not?

Alan Stern

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-11 21:44    [W:0.091 / U:3.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site