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:0.021 / U:29.832 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site