From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zeus03.de (zeus03.de [194.117.254.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37FDD3F8257 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2026 11:02:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781002979; cv=none; b=e/Dent+b4DJzP1iQtqPFKUChqhuwWzcvkh3dD4LM41+5/m29MfLjWGE+mImupbKt/foWpcyyMNnwzLllJBshXZJaFQPWTxvLWh3KJx7N7K3GPk+POO4KIzWlhK6iRps4VNHCrhY+MUZNYbMr3vSnyJa+6ixUzPR+//DZCqIfMEM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781002979; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eDNoB5RGJmOVfcMPByK4i7bKnJa1fIywj2xFgdSQSrI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=L9ZZNFz5vDLtldW4DnhFk09aMZfHkt+adf4Q9xT0j9aqnzquyyQ0JPL2UFhzzEdehe7h7YCGNJB/f/dEGmY2jqPxbiEGOOIXPlUaJaprfWrAFWghUs6GOBegOVSccYQLC7K06xg0tfoQwkUzT2G4kqyPZx+2DNZ/LgKE2NY2t+8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b=NxjHrHCy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b="NxjHrHCy" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= sang-engineering.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=k1; bh=pwaX 6RCaOibEIyNuI7kcq9+uLt+TcVmh2NYeLQFKnvk=; b=NxjHrHCyQsdtN9jM+NIh sEg/VcIpnHOYZNSDTZxI4kW3ZCYFa+xARHkEW7AqRspXtgFYPP0QbXkZoOsDjL9U mlo1M5sSOYkQmjCLLGzEvmP8epGYmAAWMLhzjCqvlbHjjVz3b0IF/RtJm7X4mFk9 M5gRuCoAkq55Obl/4BHw8tifeK6KNeEjNkzB/++x0j1v7jACwMzBQq9TDuqj26SQ gu3hUSxqWglET5DiF4rSIgkba8ZJCr0M4IySWmu6Wma/3c/wuNAHJchd3Hgm3OxS +gJNGuIoQykejTocf56ldqfR8XigeRC6TFABIE82HOCRgzQ+vNda/0dx3HSGzB1X YA== Received: (qmail 1242701 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2026 13:02:51 +0200 Received: by mail.zeus03.de with ESMTPSA (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted, authenticated); 9 Jun 2026 13:02:51 +0200 X-UD-Smtp-Session: l3s3148p1@jHJuEdBTpNYujnvA Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 13:02:50 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: =?utf-8?Q?Beno=C3=AEt?= Monin Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Jean Delvare , Thomas Petazzoni Subject: Re: [PATCH i2c-tools v4] i2ctransfer: Add optional message modifier flags Message-ID: References: <20260608-msg-flags-v4-1-68ad6f0a4e4d@bootlin.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oV22Kbyvh/Qn4ZH4" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260608-msg-flags-v4-1-68ad6f0a4e4d@bootlin.com> --oV22Kbyvh/Qn4ZH4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Beno=C3=AEt, Looks mostly good, I think we are nearly there. > + /* unexpected next part of the message: length or address */ > + case '0': > + case '1': > + case '2': > + case '3': > + case '4': > + case '5': > + case '6': > + case '7': > + case '8': > + case '9': > + case '?': > + case '@': > + fprintf(stderr, "Error: Unexpected flag '%c'\n", arg); > + return FLAGS_UNEXPECTED; I suggest to drop this error message. The above characters are not exactly flags. By removing the printout here... > + for (ret =3D FLAGS_GOT_OPTIONAL; *arg_ptr && ret =3D=3D FLAGS_GOT_OPT= IONAL; arg_ptr++) > + ret =3D add_flag_if_supported(&flags, funcs, *arg_ptr); > + if (ret =3D=3D FLAGS_UNKNOWN || ret =3D=3D FLAGS_UNEXPECTED || ret = =3D=3D FLAGS_UNSUPPORTED) =2E.. and simplifying this to ... + if (ret =3D=3D FLAGS_UNKNOWN || ret =3D=3D FLAGS_UNSUPPORTED) =2E.. we get the error message of a missing r/w-flag instead. I think this is more helpful to the user? What do you think? Happy hacking, Wolfram --oV22Kbyvh/Qn4ZH4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAmon8tcACgkQFA3kzBSg KbYn/w//e4Y0FNn2C9FUSWV4f08vhBKnEVI5JOwFQAF+8qfXRbZIcQ2xLwgK66Ak mVDBWv0CN9abrXCAe0hKZZmxSS8Ns6d2LEb0wKqYLfEo/+J0+VejTwy/mgmMIXLu mQf+CaC5wCZ5/8v3uitaYCODS184h4l4p1dllIgB+o08JavECXkaXo8hDzUcsQxL ZxbDnI5NtxHyTNr9Z/LNv2Ry+t4lDXwDRZrgPORpCzunbGhpnOd5HYSAjh+qzjwX n5u28Lb1MdrQRX64XHUO+L+LLOLXIMXPCDmYy8MP7cnCze94TOJpDH1bCBc5A/nD rl2SMhNTuWKVOKQ3vrioJNAtYIOHJQe0WsVbuovx7SanUDJxPSxWAOwZR3HC/GKQ KGe3uyiy8gq1ULsDF/Rcoioe1DKwS4PLT1plStJMQNzHcZvxgtfFXXIRyA9wltaq oME9Y/hzs6HdjytuOFDTEZqKCPjl14zwTuT3M6VMTFyDzcDIbSM3lCAHGA2qZgaW 6kY4TP6XGcyfl2THC2aN/ilGzE6k0hDIr6ISmVKQg/DvPM1Nsn4ffKUvACYi1Vco aCSL0nU6kYL6pRtVlOAn0ybjUAqz7Vyuqjty0PeL6mh3zGndcVwskVt1E1d0Mqj1 ilFcBeDbPgjM1uobFod6wz9OW65d4ziXVFockvZ4SpBV3DsnyPc= =FAxz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oV22Kbyvh/Qn4ZH4--