On 05/02/21 12:51 pm, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Please provide some description of the change. > > And please clarify the patch subject, because as far as I can see, the return > is already checked allthough the check seams wrong.
This was my first patch. I will try to provide better description of changes and subject in later patches. > Le 04/02/2021 à 19:16, Mayank Suman a écrit : >> Signed-off-by: Mayank Suman <mayanksu...@live.com> >> --- >> arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c | 8 ++++---- >> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/eeh-powernv.c | 4 ++-- >> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c >> index 813713c9120c..2dbe1558a71f 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c >> @@ -1628,8 +1628,8 @@ static ssize_t eeh_force_recover_write(struct file >> *filp, >> char buf[20]; >> int ret; >> - ret = simple_write_to_buffer(buf, sizeof(buf), ppos, user_buf, count); >> - if (!ret) >> + ret = simple_write_to_buffer(buf, sizeof(buf)-1, ppos, user_buf, count); >> + if (ret <= 0) > return -EFAULT; > > Why return -EFAULT when the function has returned -EINVAL ? If -EINVAL is returned by simple_write_to_buffer, we should return -EINVAL. > And why is it -EFAULT when ret is 0 ? EFAULT means error accessing memory. > The earlier check returned EFAULT when ret is 0. Most probably, there was an assumption that writing 0 bytes (by simple_write_to_buffer) means a fault with memory (or error accessing memory).
