From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:41:26 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: Add missing parentheses Message-Id: <20090219104126.3de8c55c@hyperion.delvare> List-Id: References: <499AB902.1080308@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <499AB902.1080308@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:13:45 -0000 (GMT), alistair@devzero.co.uk wrote: > (Sorry for the delay and probable mail corruption, I'm travelling) > > [snip] > > for (i = 0; i < offset_count; i++) > > if ((x = abituguru3_read(data, bank, offset + i, count, > > - buf + i * count)) != count) > > - return i * count + (i && (x < 0)) ? 0 : x; > > + buf + i * count)) != count) { > > + if (x < 0) > > + return x; > > + return i * count + x; > > + } > > > > return i * count; > > } > > > > Objections? > > I have no objections to this patch. Thanks. > However, if propagating errors up the stack is desirable, I think it would > also be prudent to fix abituguru3_update_device() to pass the error back > via ERR_PTR() or similar, instead of returning NULL. That way, > show_value(), show_alarm() and abituguru3_probe() could return f.e. -EIO, > generated by abituguru3_read(). > > This change is more involved; I can send a follow up for a later > time-frame if desired. I don't think it is really important. The read functions never return any error other than -EIO anyway. And there is nothing user-space can do about the error code. So I doubt it is worth spending time on this. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors