On 8/5/19 10:59 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:21:42PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: >> Prior behavior was to wrongly report all bytes written if enqueueing wasn't >> possible at the time. Instead we should either return 0 or an error code if >> users need to retry. write(2) returns 0 in such cases. Follow suit. >> >> As no current users run puts in a loop, this has no effect for now. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Changes in v2: >> New commit. >> --- >> common/ratp/ratp.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/common/ratp/ratp.c b/common/ratp/ratp.c >> index 9aea1786d684..8ac7dc98b6f8 100644 >> --- a/common/ratp/ratp.c >> +++ b/common/ratp/ratp.c >> @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ static int ratp_console_puts(struct console_device *cdev, const char *s) >> len = strlen(s); >> >> if (ratp_busy(&ctx->ratp)) >> - return len; >> + return 0; > > I'm not sure if this return value is ever used for something useful, > not sure how relevant this is. ratp_busy() however returns true when > it's called from inside the ratp code. This is necessary so that we > don't get stuck in an endless loop. If we start returning 0 for > "no characters sent" how should code evaluating this return value > react? Retrying it until all characters are sent obviously is not an > option. > > I think the current behaviour of just returning 'len' is correct. I see. I will drop this patch then. > > Sascha > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
