[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] power: refactor pstate and acpi code

[David Hunt]

On 23/6/2021 9:54 AM, Richael Zhuang wrote:
> Hi,
>   There is a bug in lib/power/power_common.c:
> +write_core_sysfs_s(FILE *f, const char *str)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = fseek(f, 0, SEEK_SET);
> +	if (ret != 0)
> +		return -1;
> +
> +	ret = fputs(str, f);
> +	if (ret != 0)
> +		return -1;
> Here, I mentioned in the V4 patch:  ret >=0 if success, EOF means failure.  It seems you forgot to fix this.


Ah, OK. Will fix in v6. Hopefully I'll reply to the correct email-id 
this time. :)


> +
> +	/* flush the output */
> +	ret = fflush(f);
> +	if (ret != 0)
> +		return -1;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
>
> Best regards,
> Richael
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Hunt <david.hunt at intel.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 9:28 PM
>> To: dev at dpdk.org
>> Cc: anatoly.burakov at intel.com; stephen at networkplumber.org; Richael
>> Zhuang <Richael.Zhuang at arm.com>; Reshma Pattan
>> <reshma.pattan at intel.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] power: refactor pstate and acpi code
>>
>> Adding people to the CC list that were on v4 of this patch set, and Richael
>> who raised some issues in v4.
>>
>> On 22/6/2021 1:58 PM, David Hunt wrote:
>>> From: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>
>>>
>>> Currently, ACPI and PSTATE modes have lots of code duplication,
>>> confusing logic, and a bunch of other issues that can, and have, led
>>> to various bugs and resource leaks.
>>>
>>> This commit factors out the common parts of sysfs reading/writing for
>>> ACPI and PSTATE drivers.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.hunt at intel.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> changes in v2 (should read v5)
>>> * fixed bugs raised by Richael Zhuang in review - open file rw+, etc.
>>> * removed FOPS* and FOPEN* macros, which contained control statements.
>>> * fixed some checkpatch warnings.
>>
>> So in the process of posting v5, I picked the email id from v4 in patchwork,
>> used that in my --in-reply-to, and somehow it screwed up the threading as it
>> looks like I'm responding to v3. So I'm sending this email to make sure all the
>> people CC'd in v4 are included in this (v5).
>>
>> Anatoly is busy at the moment, so I'm addressing the issues raised in v4, and
>> additionally adressing the checkpatch issues where it does not like the
>> macros with control statements, so removing those, as I don't like them
>> either.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave.
>>
>>
>>