2009/1/5 Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 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.
>
I wonder if you
shouldn't check before you read if position is not exceeding the length?
+ if (pos > len) // if we are beyond end then why
bother to read more
+ return pos;
> len = read(fd, buf + pos, count);
> if (len <= 0)
+ return len; //to report an error
-> - return len;
-> + return pos > len ? pos : len;
and as position is always >0 and len < 0 in this place it would always
be reduced to pos
>
> count -= len;
> pos += len;
Best wishes
Marcin Tolysz
--
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
