[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0fecef2-34bb-3e35-cc7f-0035eaaa8a27@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 09:37:31 +0800
From: wangyufen <wangyufen@...wei.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, <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()
在 2022/12/1 2:00, Bart Van Assche 写道:
> 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.
>
Thanks, that's helpful.
> 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