From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 10/10] efivars: use generic UUID library Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:29:11 +0200 Message-ID: <1456496951.13244.147.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <1455711448-124103-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <1455711448-124103-11-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20160218150727.GK2651@codeblueprint.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160218150727.GK2651@codeblueprint.co.uk> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matt Fleming Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Theodore Ts'o , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jarkko Sakkinen , Jani Nikula , David Airlie , Benjamin Tissoires , Bjorn Helgaas , Mathias Nyman , Lv Zheng , Mark Brown , Zhang Rui , Mika Westerberg , Andrew Morton , Rasmus Villemoes , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 15:07 +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb, at 02:17:28PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > Instead of opencoding let's use generic UUID library functions > > here. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko > > --- > > =C2=A0fs/efivarfs/inode.c | 40 +++---------------------------------= ---- > > =C2=A01 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > >=20 > > diff --git a/fs/efivarfs/inode.c b/fs/efivarfs/inode.c > > index 3381b9d..b579e3a 100644 > > --- a/fs/efivarfs/inode.c > > +++ b/fs/efivarfs/inode.c > > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ > > =C2=A0#include > > =C2=A0#include > > =C2=A0#include > > +#include > > =C2=A0 > > =C2=A0#include "internal.h" > > =C2=A0 > > @@ -44,11 +45,7 @@ struct inode *efivarfs_get_inode(struct > > super_block *sb, > > =C2=A0 */ > > =C2=A0bool efivarfs_valid_name(const char *str, int len) > > =C2=A0{ > > - static const char dashes[EFI_VARIABLE_GUID_LEN] =3D { > > - [8] =3D 1, [13] =3D 1, [18] =3D 1, [23] =3D 1 > > - }; > > =C2=A0 const char *s =3D str + len - EFI_VARIABLE_GUID_LEN; > > - int i; > > =C2=A0 > > =C2=A0 /* > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0* We need a GUID, plus at least one letter for the > > variable name, > > @@ -66,37 +63,7 @@ bool efivarfs_valid_name(const char *str, int > > len) > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0* > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0* 12345678-1234-1234-1234-123456789abc > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0*/ > > - for (i =3D 0; i < EFI_VARIABLE_GUID_LEN; i++) { > > - if (dashes[i]) { > > - if (*s++ !=3D '-') > > - return false; > > - } else { > > - if (!isxdigit(*s++)) > > - return false; > > - } > > - } > > - > > - return true; > > -} > > - > > -static void efivarfs_hex_to_guid(const char *str, efi_guid_t > > *guid) > > -{ > > - guid->b[0] =3D hex_to_bin(str[6]) << 4 | hex_to_bin(str[7]); > > - guid->b[1] =3D hex_to_bin(str[4]) << 4 | hex_to_bin(str[5]); > > - guid->b[2] =3D hex_to_bin(str[2]) << 4 | hex_to_bin(str[3]); > > - guid->b[3] =3D hex_to_bin(str[0]) << 4 | hex_to_bin(str[1]); > > - guid->b[4] =3D hex_to_bin(str[11]) << 4 | > > hex_to_bin(str[12]); > > - guid->b[5] =3D hex_to_bin(str[9]) << 4 | > > hex_to_bin(str[10]); > > - guid->b[6] =3D hex_to_bin(str[16]) << 4 | > > hex_to_bin(str[17]); > > - guid->b[7] =3D hex_to_bin(str[14]) << 4 | > > hex_to_bin(str[15]); > > - guid->b[8] =3D hex_to_bin(str[19]) << 4 | > > hex_to_bin(str[20]); > > - guid->b[9] =3D hex_to_bin(str[21]) << 4 | > > hex_to_bin(str[22]); > > - guid->b[10] =3D hex_to_bin(str[24]) << 4 | > > hex_to_bin(str[25]); > > - guid->b[11] =3D hex_to_bin(str[26]) << 4 | > > hex_to_bin(str[27]); > > - guid->b[12] =3D hex_to_bin(str[28]) << 4 | > > hex_to_bin(str[29]); > > - guid->b[13] =3D hex_to_bin(str[30]) << 4 | > > hex_to_bin(str[31]); > > - guid->b[14] =3D hex_to_bin(str[32]) << 4 | > > hex_to_bin(str[33]); > > - guid->b[15] =3D hex_to_bin(str[34]) << 4 | > > hex_to_bin(str[35]); > > + return uuid_is_valid(s); > > =C2=A0} >=20 > I think you've confused yourself here. You've inverted the return > value meaning for efivarfs_valid_name(). >=20 > Normally I would expect this change to be correct but uuid_is_valid() > returns 0 for success, -EINVAL for failure. Either the function is > misnamed or the return value semantics are wrong. Oops, thanks for noticing this. Right the return value should be aligned. --=20 Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html