+Tom Hello Massimiliano,
On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 01:06:21PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > HI, > > čt 8. 2. 2024 v 16:00 odesílatel Massimiliano Minella > <[email protected]> napsal: > > > > From: Massimiliano Minella <[email protected]> > > > > In gsub, when the destination string is empty, the string 't' is > > provided and the regular expression doesn't match, then the final result > > is an empty string. > > > > Example: > > > > => echo ${foo} > > > > => setenv foo > > => setexpr foo gsub e a bar > > => echo ${foo} > > > > => > > > > The variable ${foo} should contain "bar" and the lack of match shouldn't > > be considered an error. > > > > This patch fixes the erroneous behavior by removing the return > > statement and breaking out of the loop in case of lack of match. > > > > Also add a test for the no match case. > > > > Signed-off-by: Massimiliano Minella <[email protected]> > > --- > > Changes in V2: > > - update documentation to describe the behavior > > > > cmd/setexpr.c | 9 ++++----- > > doc/usage/cmd/setexpr.rst | 1 + > > test/cmd/setexpr.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/cmd/setexpr.c b/cmd/setexpr.c > > index 233471f6cb..ab76824a32 100644 > > --- a/cmd/setexpr.c > > +++ b/cmd/setexpr.c > > @@ -216,14 +216,12 @@ int setexpr_regex_sub(char *data, uint data_size, > > char *nbuf, uint nbuf_size, > > if (res == 0) { > > if (loop == 0) { > > debug("%s: No match\n", data); > > - return 1; > > This patch actually changed the return value from command. > In board/xilinx/zynqmp/zynqmp_kria.env we have > > bootcmd=setenv model $board_name && if setexpr model gsub > .*$k24_starter* $k24_starter || setexpr model gsub .*$k26_starter* > $k26_starter; then run som_cc_boot; else run som_mmc_boot; run > som_cc_boot; fi > > and this patch actually breaked it because we rely on return value. > Changing return value is not described and I want to know if this > patch should be fixed > or we should update our commands to match new return value. Massimilano, any comment on this? This change broke also our use case - our board is no longer booting with v2024.10 U-Boot. I do not think we should change something like that without a clear reason and I was not able to understand it from the commit message. Francesco
