On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 05:49:47PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 12:53:25AM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> > In store_sys_acpi, if count equals zero, or parse_arg()s sscanf call
> > fails, 'value' remains possibly uninitialized. In that case 'value'
> > shouldn't be used to produce the store_sys_acpi()s return value.
> >
> > Only test the return value of set_acpi() if we can actually call it.
> > Return rv otherwise.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c | 8 ++++----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
> > index bd533c2..41f12ba 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
> > @@ -279,10 +279,10 @@ static ssize_t store_sys_acpi(struct device *dev, int cm,
> > int rv, value;
> >
> > rv = parse_arg(buf, count, &value);
> > - if (rv > 0)
> > - value = set_acpi(eeepc, cm, value);
>
> That was rather horrible wasn't it? :-)
>
> > - if (value < 0)
> > - return -EIO;
> > + if (rv > 0) {
> > + if (set_acpi(eeepc, cm, value) < 0)
> > + return -EIO;
>
> Is there a compelling reason not to propogate the return code of set_acpi?
> (ENODEV specifically). I see -EIO in Documentation/filesystems/sysfs.txt, but
> it's used by default if the show() pointer is NULL (for example), but otherwise
> propogates the error.
>
> Specifically it states:
>
> - show() or store() can always return errors. If a bad value comes
> through, be sure to return an error.
>
> Greg, does this need to be -EIO? or is returning someting like ENODEV preferable
> if it more accurately reflects the error?
Just return the value of set_acpi() and you should be fine.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
