On Monday 05 January 2009 16:42:39 ext Christian Hoene wrote:
> > There are some parts that look a bit redundant/suspicious:
> > > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static ssize_t __read(int fd, void *buf, size_t
> > > count) while (count > 0) {
> > > len = read(fd, buf + pos, count);
> > > if (len <= 0)
> > > - return len;
> > > + return pos > len ? pos : len;
> > >
> > > count -= len;
> > > pos += len;
> >
> > Is the ternary '?' operator really needed here? In this part of code we
> > know for sure that 'len' is less or equal to zero, also 'pos ' is a
> > positive number or zero. Having just 'return pos' should be enough.
>
> No. If read returns an error, the this error is passed to __read, too.
I mean that 'return pos > len ? pos : len' and 'return pos' expressions are
completely interexchangeable in this context.
Regarding this particular change itself, was there a reproducible problem in
your testing that strictly required this fix? Was it involving sockets or
pipes?
But the bug in 'sbc_get_codesize' is the unquestionable one for sure. Good job
finding and fixing it.
--
Best regards,
Siarhei Siamashka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
