On Mon, Oct 19 2015, "Nelson, Shannon" <shannon.nel...@intel.com> wrote:
>> From: Rasmus Villemoes [mailto:li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 1:58 PM
>> Subject: [PATCH] intel: i40e: fix confused code
>>
>> T
>> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 1:58 PM
> >> Subject: [PATCH] intel: i40e: fix confused code
> >>
> >> This code is pretty confused. The variable name 'bytes_not_copied'
> >> clearly indicates that the programmer knew the semantics of
> >> copy_{t
> -Original Message-
> From: Rasmus Villemoes [mailto:li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk]
> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 1:58 PM
> Subject: [PATCH] intel: i40e: fix confused code
>
> This code is pretty confused. The variable name 'bytes_not_copied'
> clearly indicates tha
> From: Rasmus Villemoes [mailto:li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk]
> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 1:58 PM
> Subject: [PATCH] intel: i40e: fix confused code
>
> This code is pretty confused. The variable name 'bytes_not_copied'
> clearly indicates that the programmer knew the se
This code is pretty confused. The variable name 'bytes_not_copied'
clearly indicates that the programmer knew the semantics of
copy_{to,from}_user, but then the return value is checked for being
negative and used as a -Exxx return value.
I'm not sure this is the proper fix, but at least we get
