Hi Maciej, On 1/17/2024 1:49 AM, Maciej Wieczór-Retman wrote: > On 2024-01-08 at 14:38:45 -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> On 12/12/2023 6:52 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote: >>> + >>> + snprintf(res_path, sizeof(res_path), "%s/%s/%s", INFO_PATH, resource, >>> + feature); >>> + >>> + if (stat(res_path, &statbuf)) >>> + return false; >> >> I think it will be more robust to look at statbuf to learn if the file type >> is correct and the file is actually readable. > > Could that file be unreadable or of wrong type? It should be readable and the correct type when all goes well. Hence the term "more robust". > > Also I thought that since read_info_res_file() opens and reads that file any > errors should be handled there. Shouldn't this part of the test only return > whether the file is there or not since that indicates if something is supported > in the kernel? ok. Reinette
