On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:10 PM Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 5:29 PM Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 08:07:44AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 10:48 PM Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > Still shadows error codes. > > > > > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > What do you mean? What's wrong with "return -EINVAL"? > > > > The actual error code is returned by hex_to_bin(). What is the point > > of shadowing it with the explicit value? > > hex_to_bin returns -1 on error, hex2bin returns -EINVAL on error. > > This is inconsistent and it may be fixed (after verifying all the > hex_to_bin callers - a quick grep over the source shows that there is "if > ((k = hex_to_bin(in_str[j--])) != -1)"). > > But for the purpose of fixing this bug, we should preserve the behavior > and return -1 and -EINVAL just like it was before. This is clear now to me. So, by improving a commit message you may make it clear to everybody who reads your change. With the updated commit message, Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
