From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MSs3d-0000NE-Tf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:33:29 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MSs3Z-0000JA-30
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:33:29 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47409 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MSs3Y-0000Iv-Qg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:33:24 -0400
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:33034)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <hch@lst.de>) id 1MSs3Y-0001nd-7X
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:33:24 -0400
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:33:22 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu-io: reject invalid pattern
Message-ID: <20090720123322.GB9199@lst.de>
References: <20090719231925.GA1923@lst.de> <4A64254E.8030000@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A64254E.8030000@redhat.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > + * Because the pattern is used as an argument to memset it must evaluate
> > + * to an unsigned integer that fits into a single byte.
> 
> + * Returns the pattern byte or -1 in case arg does not contain a valid
> pattern
> 

> > +			pattern = parse_pattern(optarg);
> > +			if (pattern < 0)
> > +				return 0;
> 
> Coding style (braces).
> 
> Looks good to me otherwise.

Thanks, I've resent an updated version.