On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 13:58 +0100, LABBE Corentin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 06:26:31AM -0500, Charles (Chas) Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 09:06 +0100, LABBE Corentin wrote:
> > > @@ -357,11 +357,11 @@ static int process_status(struct solos_card *card,
> > > int port, struct sk_buff *skb
> > > if (!str)
> > > return -EIO;
> > >
> > > - ver = simple_strtol(str, NULL, 10);
> > > - if (ver < 1) {
> > > + err = kstrtoint(str, 10, &ver);
> > > + if (err || ver < 1) {
> > > dev_warn(&card->dev->dev, "Unexpected status interrupt version
> > > %d\n",
> > > ver);
> > > - return -EIO;
> > > + return err;
> >
> >
> > If ver < 1 then you might return a 0 here. Always returning -EIO is
> > probably just fine.
> >
>
> Hello
>
> I think the best solution is to split the test, since returning error code
> from kstrtoint was asked by David Miller.
> if (err)
> return err;
> if (ver < 1)
> return -EIO;
> Thanks
> Regards
That's fine. You just shouldn't return 0 if the ver < 1. This isn't
timing critical code.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
