[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:42:09 +0000
From: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-netback: correct return value checks on
xenbus_scanf()
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Durrant
> Sent: 07 July 2016 11:41
> To: Wei Liu; David Vrabel
> Cc: Jan Beulich; Wei Liu; xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-netback: correct return value checks
> on xenbus_scanf()
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-
> > owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Wei Liu
> > Sent: 07 July 2016 11:35
> > To: David Vrabel
> > Cc: Jan Beulich; Wei Liu; xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org;
> > netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-netback: correct return value checks
> > on xenbus_scanf()
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:58:16AM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> > > On 07/07/16 08:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > Only a positive return value indicates success.
> > >
> > > This is not correct.
> > >
>
> If Xen's vsscanf follows the semantics of scanf(3) then 0 is a failure so I think
> the comment is correct.
>
s/Xen/the kernel/
> Paul
>
> >
> > Do you mean the commit message is not correct or the code is not
> > correct? If it is the formal, do you have any suggestion to fix it?
> >
> > (I was going to just ack this because Paul already reviewed it)
> >
> > Wei.
> >
> > > David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists