Hi Andre,
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:03:43 +0100, Andre Prendel wrote:
> Evaluate return value of idChip().
>
> Some of the functions called from idChip() can fail which means
> idChip() can return an error. Callers of idChip() should be aware of
> this.
> ---
> prog/sensord/sense.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> Index: sensors/prog/sensord/sense.c
> ===================================================================
> --- sensors.orig/prog/sensord/sense.c 2009-11-03 20:20:10.000000000 +0100
> +++ sensors/prog/sensord/sense.c 2009-11-03 20:28:44.000000000 +0100
> @@ -45,12 +45,23 @@
>
> static int idChip(const sensors_chip_name *chip)
> {
> - const char *adapter;
> + const char *name, *adapter;
> +
> + name = chipName(chip);
> + if (!name) {
> + sensorLog(LOG_ERR, "Error getting chip name");
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + sensorLog(LOG_INFO, "Chip: %s", name);
>
> - sensorLog(LOG_INFO, "Chip: %s", chipName(chip));
> adapter = sensors_get_adapter_name(&chip->bus);
> - if (adapter)
> - sensorLog(LOG_INFO, "Adapter: %s", adapter);
> + if (!adapter) {
> + sensorLog(LOG_ERR, "Error getting adapter name");
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + sensorLog(LOG_INFO, "Adapter: %s", adapter);
I seem to remember that we made missing adapter name a non-fatal error
on purpose. It has happened in the past (when sysfs layout changed, for
example) and it did not seem worth causing sensord to fail, as this is
not a key information. So I'd revert this change.
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -151,8 +162,11 @@
> const FeatureDescriptor *features = descriptor->features;
> int i, ret = 0;
>
> - if (action == DO_READ)
> + if (action == DO_READ) {
> ret = idChip(chip);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + }
>
> for (i = 0; features[i].format; i++) {
> ret = do_features(chip, features + i, action);
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
