On 29/10/2020 10:51, Leo Yan wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 10:23:39AM +0000, Andr� Przywara wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> +static int arm_spe_pkt_snprintf(int *err, char **buf_p, size_t *blen,
>>> + const char *fmt, ...)
>>> +{
>>> + va_list ap;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + va_start(ap, fmt);
>>> + ret = vsnprintf(*buf_p, *blen, fmt, ap);
>>> + va_end(ap);
>>> +
>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>> + if (err && !*err)
>>> + *err = ret;
>>> + } else {
>>> + *buf_p += ret;
>>> + *blen -= ret;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return ret;
>>> +}
>>
>> So this now implements the old behaviour of ignoring previous errors, in
>> all cases, since we don't check for errors and bail out in the callers.
>>
>> If you simply check for validity of err and for it being 0 before
>> proceeding with the va_start() above, this should be fixed.
>
> I think you are suggesting below code, could you take a look for it
> before I proceed to respin new patch?>
> static int arm_spe_pkt_snprintf(int *err, char **buf_p, size_t *blen,
> const char *fmt, ...)
> {
> va_list ap;
> int ret;
>
> /* Bail out if any error occurred */
> if (err && *err)
> return *err;
>
> va_start(ap, fmt);
> ret = vsnprintf(*buf_p, *blen, fmt, ap);
> va_end(ap);
>
> if (ret < 0) {
> if (err && !*err)
> *err = ret;
> } else {
> *buf_p += ret;
> *blen -= ret;
> }
>
> return ret;
> }
Yes, this is what I had in mind.
Cheers,
Andre
