On 23/6/2021 9:54 AM, Richael Zhuang wrote:
Hi,
There is a bug in lib/power/power_common.c:
+write_core_sysfs_s(FILE *f, const char *str)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = fseek(f, 0, SEEK_SET);
+ if (ret != 0)
+ return -1;
+
+ ret = fputs(str, f);
+ if (ret != 0)
+ return -1;
Here, I mentioned in the V4 patch: ret >=0 if success, EOF means failure. It
seems you forgot to fix this.
Ah, OK. Will fix in v6. Hopefully I'll reply to the correct email-id
this time. :)
+
+ /* flush the output */
+ ret = fflush(f);
+ if (ret != 0)
+ return -1;
+
+ return 0;
+}
Best regards,
Richael
-----Original Message-----
From: David Hunt <david.h...@intel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 9:28 PM
To: dev@dpdk.org
Cc: anatoly.bura...@intel.com; step...@networkplumber.org; Richael
Zhuang <richael.zhu...@arm.com>; Reshma Pattan
<reshma.pat...@intel.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] power: refactor pstate and acpi code
Adding people to the CC list that were on v4 of this patch set, and Richael
who raised some issues in v4.
On 22/6/2021 1:58 PM, David Hunt wrote:
From: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
Currently, ACPI and PSTATE modes have lots of code duplication,
confusing logic, and a bunch of other issues that can, and have, led
to various bugs and resource leaks.
This commit factors out the common parts of sysfs reading/writing for
ACPI and PSTATE drivers.
Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.h...@intel.com>
---
changes in v2 (should read v5)
* fixed bugs raised by Richael Zhuang in review - open file rw+, etc.
* removed FOPS* and FOPEN* macros, which contained control statements.
* fixed some checkpatch warnings.
So in the process of posting v5, I picked the email id from v4 in patchwork,
used that in my --in-reply-to, and somehow it screwed up the threading as it
looks like I'm responding to v3. So I'm sending this email to make sure all the
people CC'd in v4 are included in this (v5).
Anatoly is busy at the moment, so I'm addressing the issues raised in v4, and
additionally adressing the checkpatch issues where it does not like the
macros with control statements, so removing those, as I don't like them
either.
Regards,
Dave.
