Messages in this thread | | | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Date | Wed, 8 Jun 2022 07:37:10 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 08/15] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: handle empty payload in getting proto info |
| |
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:17 PM Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 11:47:56AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:57 AM Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > cros_ec_get_proto_info() expects to receive > > > sizeof(struct ec_response_get_protocol_info) from send_command(). The > > > payload is valid only if the return value is positive. > > > > > > Add Kunit tests for returning 0 in send_command() and handle the case in > > > cros_ec_get_proto_info(). > > > > > That should be two separate patches. > > Ack, will separate them in next version. I put them together because I wrote > Kunit test first to make sure the second half takes effect (somehow TDD). > > Could I still put the Kunit patch first (even if it introduces Kunit test > failure)? >
Sorry, I am running behind with e-mails.
If you want to, but why not let the fix come first ? If the unit test patch is first, mayle add a note after --- indicating that it is expected to fail and will be fixed with the next patch.
Thanks, Guenter
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org> > > > --- > > > No v1. New in the series. > > > > > > drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto.c | 5 + > > > drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto_test.c | 132 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 137 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto.c b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto.c > > > index 893b76703da6..6f5be9e5ede4 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto.c > > > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_proto.c > > > @@ -314,6 +314,11 @@ static int cros_ec_get_proto_info(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev, int devidx) > > > goto exit; > > > } > > > > > > + if (ret == 0) { > > > + ret = -EPROTO; > > > + goto exit; > > > + } > > > + > > > > I think you can move that into the if() statement above (which already > > checks for ret >=0), > > making it a special case of that situation. > > Nope, there is no "ret >= 0" (you could be confusing with > cros_ec_get_host_event_wake_mask()). > > The result flow roughly like: > > ret = send_command(...); > if (ret < 0) > goto exit; > > mapped = cros_ec_map_error(...); > if (mapped) { > ... > goto exit; > } > > if (ret == 0) { > ... > goto exit; > }
| |