On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 01:28:19PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:12:28 +0100, Andre Prendel wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:57:03AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > No, I didn't. It's just theoretical.
> >
> > > 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...
> >
> > IMO error reporting should be very stable. If the caller checks
> > return value carefully it's fine too. Fprintf() isn't a problem. But I
> > don't know what about vsnprintf(), syslog().
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Vous avez le choix. :)
>
> Sicherlich :)
>
> Patch applied, thanks. If you intend to contribute to the lm-sensors
> project again on a regular basis, please let me know, we can create an
> account for you.
I'm very interested in contributing more stuff to the project. For the
moment I'm happy sending patches to you. If I should be more involved in
the future we can talk about an account again.
Thanks
Andre
> --
> Jean Delvare
