On 2017-12-26 10:39, Karl Palsson wrote:
Roman Yeryomin <ro...@advem.lv> wrote:
On 2017-12-21 21:35, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> In current state, if there is STOP but no START, enbale()
> will return 0 (success), which is wrong.
> Moreover there is no need to check for START/STOP twice.
> Instead, add err variable to save success state and
> and return it's value.
> Also eliminate the need to disable() by using 'ln -sf',
> which will first delete the old symlink if one exists.
>
Ah, mistake in description, if there is no STOP it returns 1,
which is wrong. Will resend with corrected description.
What do you mean? Are you saying that "enable" doesn't work if
STOP isn't defined? because that's clearly not the case...
I didn't say it doesn't work, I said it is returning 1, which is error
indication.
Look at first check which returns 1 if there is no neither STOP nor
START. It will pass if there is no STOP but afterwards second check will
fail and enable() will return 1 anyway.
It's pretty obvious that the logic is broken. If you implement error
checking when using enable() then your check will be broken.
Regards,
Roman
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
