Re: [PATCH] fix for lsusb: unable to initialize libusb: -99

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:32:33PM +0530, Aruna Balakrishnaiah wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Aruna Balakrishnaiah <aruna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>    lsusb throws unusual error message "unable to initialize libusb: -99"                              
> with exit status of 1 when usb devices are not listed. Patch handles it  
> without printing anything and returns exit status of 0.

Why would we want to return "good" if there was an error?

> ---
>  lsusb.c |   27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lsusb.c b/lsusb.c
> index 37c43f7..081d42e 100644
> --- a/lsusb.c
> +++ b/lsusb.c
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
>  #include "usbmisc.h"
>  
>  #include <getopt.h>
> +#include <dirent.h>
>  
>  #define le16_to_cpu(x) libusb_cpu_to_le16(libusb_cpu_to_le16(x))
>  
> @@ -108,6 +109,7 @@
>  #define	HUB_STATUS_BYTELEN	3	/* max 3 bytes status = hub + 23 ports */
>  
>  static const char procbususb[] = "/proc/bus/usb";
> +static const char sysbususb[] = "/sys/bus/usb/devices";
>  static unsigned int verblevel = VERBLEVEL_DEFAULT;
>  static int do_report_desc = 1;
>  static const char * const encryption_type[] = {
> @@ -3920,6 +3922,25 @@ static int treedump(void)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int check_for_usbdevice(void)
> +{
> +	struct dirent *d;
> +	int n = 0;
> +	DIR *dir = opendir(sysbususb);
> +
> +	while ((d = readdir(dir)) != NULL) {
> +		if (++n > 2)
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +	closedir(dir);
> +
> +	if (n <= 2)
> +		return 1;
> +	else
> +		return 0;
> +}

No, we don't want to be doing this, this is why we use libusb, it
handles this type of thing for us.

> +
>  /* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- */
>  
>  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> @@ -4027,7 +4048,11 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  				strerror(err));
>  	status = 0;
>  
> -	err = libusb_init(&ctx);
> +	if (check_for_usbdevice())
> +		return 0;

Again, returning 0 for when there is an error is not a good idea.

Why is the existing code somehow not working properly for you?  When
USB devices can't be found, it's good to return an error, right?

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux