On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Here I should probably remove either 'the' or the 's' after store_sys_acpi().
>> > 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.
According to 6dff29b63a5bf2eaf3313cb8a84f0b7520c43401 "eeepc-laptop:
disp attribute should be write-only" it should be -EIO. -ENODEV would
be misleading.
Thanks,
Frans
--
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
