Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:33:08 +0000 | From | "Jan Beulich" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] unlz4: always set an error return code on failures |
| |
>>> On 11.11.13 at 14:02, Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@lge.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:35:31AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 11.11.13 at 03:49, Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@lge.com> wrote: >> > Hello Jan, >> > >> > Thanks for the patch. >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 09:27:09AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> "ret", being set to -1 early on, gets cleared by the first invocation >> >> of lz4_decompress()/lz4_decompress_unknownoutputsize(), and hence >> >> subsequent failures wouldn't be noticed by the caller without setting >> >> it back to -1 right after those calls. >> >> >> >> Reported-by: Matthew Daley <mattjd@gmail.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> >> >> Cc: Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@lge.com> >> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >> >> >> >> --- a/lib/decompress_unlz4.c >> >> +++ b/lib/decompress_unlz4.c >> >> @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ STATIC inline int INIT unlz4(u8 *input, >> >> goto exit_2; >> >> } >> >> >> >> + ret = -1; >> >> if (flush && flush(outp, dest_len) != dest_len) >> >> goto exit_2; >> >> if (output) >> >> >> > What do you think of adding "ret2" for keeping "ret" error status >> > which is set by lz4_decompress*() like below. >> >> I'd be fine with that too, but preferred to submit the smallest >> possible (read: one line) patch in this case. >> > I think it looks neat avoiding "ret" being set to error status > in the loop. Can you please resend the patch with those changes?
I'm sorry, I'm confused - on one hand you're asking for changes (which I'm not going to do - I proposed the patch as is, and am not going to put my name under one that's introducing ugliness like "ret2"), ...
> Acked-by: Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@lge.com>
... yet then you give your ack to the existing patch.
Jan
| |