On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 01:45:40PM +0300, Sergey Organov wrote: > David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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'. > > It rather made me think: "what the heck is going on here?!" > > Shouldn't it better be: > > return ret ? ret : (long)copied; > > or even: > > return ret ?: (long)copied; I work with Greg a lot and his bias against ternaries has rubbed off a bit. They're sort of Perl-ish. And I have nothing against Perl. It's a perfectly fine programming language, but when I write Perl I write it in C. regards, dan carpenter