On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:46:40AM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> 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.
If something is "write only" then there should not be a store function
for it at all, the file should not be marked as writable, to prevent
anything from ever being written to it at the higher-level filesystem
layer, and never get down to the driver layer...
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
