On 8/5/19 10:59 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:21:42PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> Prior behavior was to wrongly report all bytes written if enqueueing wasn't
>> possible at the time. Instead we should either return 0 or an error code if
>> users need to retry. write(2) returns 0 in such cases. Follow suit.
>>
>> As no current users run puts in a loop, this has no effect for now.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> New commit.
>> ---
>> common/ratp/ratp.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/common/ratp/ratp.c b/common/ratp/ratp.c
>> index 9aea1786d684..8ac7dc98b6f8 100644
>> --- a/common/ratp/ratp.c
>> +++ b/common/ratp/ratp.c
>> @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ static int ratp_console_puts(struct console_device
>> *cdev, const char *s)
>> len = strlen(s);
>>
>> if (ratp_busy(&ctx->ratp))
>> - return len;
>> + return 0;
>
> I'm not sure if this return value is ever used for something useful,
> not sure how relevant this is. ratp_busy() however returns true when
> it's called from inside the ratp code. This is necessary so that we
> don't get stuck in an endless loop. If we start returning 0 for
> "no characters sent" how should code evaluating this return value
> react? Retrying it until all characters are sent obviously is not an
> option.
>
> I think the current behaviour of just returning 'len' is correct.
I see. I will drop this patch then.
>
> Sascha
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
