[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7e4f1cea-2691-9b81-35f6-0dd236149f56@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 10:15:53 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
Cc: josef@...icpanda.com, axboe@...nel.dk, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yi.zhang@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/9] blk-iocost: improve hanlder of match_u64()
Hi,
在 2022/12/01 4:32, Tejun Heo 写道:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 09:21:49PM +0800, Li Nan wrote:
>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>
>> 1) There are one place that return value of match_u64() is not checked.
>> 2) If match_u64() failed, return value is set to -EINVAL despite that
>> there are other possible errnos.
>
> Ditto. Does this matter?
>
It's not a big deal, but I think at least return value of match_u64()
should be checked, we don't want to continue with invalid input, right?
By the way, match_u64() can return -ERANGE, which can provide more
specific error messge to user.
Thanks,
Kuai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists