Hi Andre,
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:09:45 +0100, Andre Prendel wrote:
> sensors_error() returns NULL if errnum is not valid. Returning
> "Unknown error" in this case, makes output clearer than:
>
> foo: (null)
>
> and prevents error output/logging from segmentation faults.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Andre
>
> Signed-off-by: Andre Prendel <andre_prendel at gmx.de>
> ---
>
> --- lm-sensors-dev/lib/error.c 2009-01-26 17:43:43.000000000 +0100
> +++ my-lm-sensors/lib/error.c 2009-01-28 22:49:53.000000000 +0100
> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ void (*sensors_fatal_error) (const char
> sensors_default_fatal_error;
>
> static const char *errorlist[] = {
> - /* Invalid error code */ NULL,
> + /* Invalid error code */ "Unknown error",
> /* SENSORS_ERR_WILDCARDS */ "Wildcard found in chip name",
> /* SENSORS_ERR_NO_ENTRY */ "No such subfeature known",
> /* SENSORS_ERR_ACCESS_R */ "Can't read",
Out of curiosity: did you actually hit this problem in real life?
I was about to say that the caller was supposed to check for NULL, but
apparently neither sensors nor sensord nor even libsensors does, so...
I guess you're right, having an error string instead of NULL would be
better. Actually that's what libsensors 2.x did, I can't remember why I
changed that in 3.x:
http://www.lm-sensors.org/changeset/4854
Probably I thought it was not supposed to happen, but I guess it may
actually happen if mixing a recent application with an older version of
libsensors.
So I am pretty much inclined to apply your patch.
--
Jean Delvare
