On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 16:21, David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Dan Carpenter
> > Sent: 22 April 2021 10:12
> >
> > The intent here was to return negative error codes but it actually
> > returns positive values. The problem is that type promotion with
> > ternary operations is quite complicated.
> >
> > "ret" is an int. "copied" is a u32. And the snoop_file_read() function
> > returns long. What happens is that "ret" is cast to u32 and becomes
> > positive then it's cast to long and it's still positive.
> >
> > Fix this by removing the ternary so that "ret" is type promoted directly
> > to long.
> >
> > Fixes: 3772e5da4454 ("drivers/misc: Aspeed LPC snoop output using misc chardev")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c b/drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
> > index 210455efb321..eceeaf8dfbeb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/aspeed/aspeed-lpc-snoop.c
> > @@ -94,8 +94,10 @@ static ssize_t snoop_file_read(struct file *file, char __user *buffer,
> > return -EINTR;
> > }
> > ret = kfifo_to_user(&chan->fifo, buffer, count, &copied);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> >
> > - return ret ? ret : copied;
> > + return copied;
>
> I wonder if changing it to:
> return ret ? ret + 0L : copied;
>
> Might make people think in the future and not convert it back
> as an 'optimisation'.
I think the change that Dan posted is clear.
Thanks Dan! I'll get it queued up.
Cheers,
Joel
