Hi Ilpo,
On 12/11/2023 4:18 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> -int get_cbm_mask(char *cache_type, char *cbm_mask)
> +static int get_bit_mask(const char *filename, unsigned long *mask)
> {
> - char cbm_mask_path[1024];
> FILE *fp;
>
> - if (!cbm_mask)
> + if (!filename || !mask)
> return -1;
>
> - sprintf(cbm_mask_path, "%s/%s/cbm_mask", INFO_PATH, cache_type);
> -
> - fp = fopen(cbm_mask_path, "r");
> + fp = fopen(filename, "r");
> if (!fp) {
> - ksft_perror("Failed to open cache level");
> -
> + fprintf(stderr, "Failed to open bit mask file '%s': %s\n",
> + filename, strerror(errno));
> return -1;
> }
> - if (fscanf(fp, "%s", cbm_mask) <= 0) {
> - ksft_perror("Could not get max cbm_mask");
> +
> + if (fscanf(fp, "%lx", mask) <= 0) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "Could not read bit mask file '%s': %s\n",
> + filename, strerror(errno));
> fclose(fp);
>
> return -1;
After seeing the new effort to correct the perror() messages it is
not obvious to me why this patch changes these particular messages to
use fprintf(stderr, ...).
Reinette
