[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1d27a774-cf83-6e36-4fa1-c0635ebfd79e@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 10:00:07 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: wangyufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>, jgg@...pe.ca, leon@...nel.org,
dennis.dalessandro@...nelisnetworks.com
Cc: linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, bart.vanassche@....com,
easwar.hariharan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] RDMA/srp: Fix error return code in
srp_parse_options()
On 11/29/22 19:31, wangyufen wrote:
> I'm so sorry for the poor patch description. Is the following
> description OK?
>
> In the previous iteration of the while loop, "ret" may have been
> assigned a value of 0, so the error return code -EINVAL may have been
> incorrectly set to 0.
> Also, investigate each case separately as Andy suggessted. If the help
> function match_int() fails, the error code is returned, which is
> different from the warning information printed before. If the parsing
> result token is incorrect, "-EINVAL" is returned and the original
> warning information is printed.
Please reply below instead of above. See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style.
Regarding your question: not logging an error message if user input is
rejected is unfriendly to the user. I think it's better to keep the
behavior of reporting an error if a match* function fails instead of
reporting in the patch description that the behavior has changed.
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists