From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:48229)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1RyKpB-0002vY-Pe
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:14:03 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1RyKpA-0000sb-HH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:13:57 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33422)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1RyKpA-0000sI-3k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:13:56 -0500
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:13:57 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20120217101355.GC31366@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1329416075.git.mst@redhat.com>
	<f9fbea93081f7b7aa7e4f1814cf9f6dfbd6f907d.1329416075.git.mst@redhat.com>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1202162323260.2192@linmac>
	<20120217094255.GA31366@redhat.com>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1202171348510.6392@linmac>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1202171348510.6392@linmac>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] pci: rewrite devaddr parsing
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: malc <av1474@comtv.ru>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:50:41PM +0400, malc wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:23:40PM +0400, malc wrote:
> > > > +{
> > > > +    unsigned dom, bus, slot, func;
> > > > +    int n = -1;
> > > > +
> > > > +    /* Parse [[<domain>:]<bus>:]<slot> */
> > > > +    sscanf(addr, "%x:%x:%x%n", &dom, &bus, &slot, &n);
> > > 
> > > sscanf can fail.
> > > 
> > > > +    if (n == -1) {
> > 
> > 
> > If it does n will stay -1.
> > 
> 
> You are right. That does not, however, invalidate the points made
> by Eric Blake.


Yes. But I think
+    sscanf(addr, "%8x:%8x:%8x%n", &dom, &bus, &slot, &n);

addresses his points.


> -- 
> mailto:av1474@comtv.ru