No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>
---
drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
index 783bd09..785076d 100644
--- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
+++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
@@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
if (err)
- break;
+ goto err_out;
}
+ of_node_put(tree_symbols);
+
+ return 0;
+
err_out:
pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
out:
--
2.7.4
On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
>
> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
>
> err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
> if (err)
> - break;
> + goto err_out;
> }
>
> + of_node_put(tree_symbols);
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> err_out:
> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
> out:
Thanks for catching that.
Rob, please apply.
Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
-Frank
On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
>>
>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
>>
>> err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
>> if (err)
>> - break;
>> + goto err_out;
>> }
>>
>> + of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> err_out:
>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>> out:
>
> Thanks for catching that.
>
> Rob, please apply.
>
> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
>
> -Frank
On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for
both the no-error path and the error path something like:
out:
of_node_put(tree_symbols);
return err;
err_out:
pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
goto out;
}
I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.
-Frank
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
>>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
>>>
>>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
>>>
>>> err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
>>> if (err)
>>> - break;
>>> + goto err_out;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> err_out:
>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>> out:
>>
>> Thanks for catching that.
>>
>> Rob, please apply.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
>>
>> -Frank
>
> On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for
> both the no-error path and the error path something like:
>
>
> out:
> of_node_put(tree_symbols);
> return err;
>
> err_out:
> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
> goto out;
> }
>
>
> I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.
Same here. I tried to avoid the jumping back part, but if that's the
common pattern,
I can submit a v2 doing that instead.
Cheers,
Moritz
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Moritz Fischer
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
>>>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
>>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
>>>>
>>>> err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
>>>> if (err)
>>>> - break;
>>>> + goto err_out;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> err_out:
>>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>>> out:
>>>
>>> Thanks for catching that.
>>>
>>> Rob, please apply.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> -Frank
>>
>> On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for
>> both the no-error path and the error path something like:
>>
>>
>> out:
>> of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>> return err;
>>
>> err_out:
>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.
>
> Same here. I tried to avoid the jumping back part, but if that's the
> common pattern,
> I can submit a v2 doing that instead.
Both are ugly. Just do:
if (err)
pr_err(...);
Rob
On 11/23/16 13:58, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Moritz Fischer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>>>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
>>>>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
>>>>>
>>>>> err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
>>>>> if (err)
>>>>> - break;
>>>>> + goto err_out;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> + of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> err_out:
>>>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>>>> out:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for catching that.
>>>>
>>>> Rob, please apply.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> -Frank
>>>
>>> On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for
>>> both the no-error path and the error path something like:
>>>
>>>
>>> out:
>>> of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>> return err;
>>>
>>> err_out:
>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>> goto out;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.
>>
>> Same here. I tried to avoid the jumping back part, but if that's the
>> common pattern,
>> I can submit a v2 doing that instead.
>
> Both are ugly. Just do:
>
> if (err)
> pr_err(...);
>
> Rob
Agreed. Thanks for the touch of sanity Rob.
-Frank
On 11/26/16 13:39, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 11/23/16 13:58, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Moritz Fischer
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
>>>>>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
>>>>>> if (err)
>>>>>> - break;
>>>>>> + goto err_out;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> err_out:
>>>>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>>>>> out:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for catching that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob, please apply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Frank
>>>>
>>>> On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for
>>>> both the no-error path and the error path something like:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> out:
>>>> of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>>> return err;
>>>>
>>>> err_out:
>>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>>> goto out;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.
>>>
>>> Same here. I tried to avoid the jumping back part, but if that's the
>>> common pattern,
>>> I can submit a v2 doing that instead.
>>
>> Both are ugly. Just do:
>>
>> if (err)
>> pr_err(...);
>>
>> Rob
>
> Agreed. Thanks for the touch of sanity Rob.
>
> -Frank
I succumbed to looking only at the few lines of code above and not the
fuller context of the file that the patch applies to.
The proposed patch was fixing the problem that a normal completion
of the for loop was falling through into the err_out label. So what
looks cleaner ("if (err) pr_err(...)") is actually not correct.
-Frank
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/26/16 13:39, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 11/23/16 13:58, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Moritz Fischer
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
>>>>>>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>>>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>>>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
>>>>>>> if (err)
>>>>>>> - break;
>>>>>>> + goto err_out;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> err_out:
>>>>>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>>>>>> out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for catching that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob, please apply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Frank
>>>>>
>>>>> On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for
>>>>> both the no-error path and the error path something like:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> out:
>>>>> of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>>>> return err;
>>>>>
>>>>> err_out:
>>>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>>>> goto out;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.
>>>>
>>>> Same here. I tried to avoid the jumping back part, but if that's the
>>>> common pattern,
>>>> I can submit a v2 doing that instead.
>>>
>>> Both are ugly. Just do:
>>>
>>> if (err)
>>> pr_err(...);
>>>
>>> Rob
>>
>> Agreed. Thanks for the touch of sanity Rob.
>>
>> -Frank
>
> I succumbed to looking only at the few lines of code above and not the
> fuller context of the file that the patch applies to.
>
> The proposed patch was fixing the problem that a normal completion
> of the for loop was falling through into the err_out label. So what
> looks cleaner ("if (err) pr_err(...)") is actually not correct.
What!? The *only* problem was printing the error message in the err=0
case. All that needs to be fixed is not doing that. If we do that,
then we really only need 1 goto label.
Rob
Hi Rob,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 09:06:08AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 11/26/16 13:39, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> On 11/23/16 13:58, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Moritz Fischer
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
> >>>>>>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
> >>>>>>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
> >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
> >>>>>>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
> >>>>>>> if (err)
> >>>>>>> - break;
> >>>>>>> + goto err_out;
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> + of_node_put(tree_symbols);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> err_out:
> >>>>>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
> >>>>>>> out:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for catching that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Rob, please apply.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Frank
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for
> >>>>> both the no-error path and the error path something like:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> out:
> >>>>> of_node_put(tree_symbols);
> >>>>> return err;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> err_out:
> >>>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
> >>>>> goto out;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Same here. I tried to avoid the jumping back part, but if that's the
> >>>> common pattern,
> >>>> I can submit a v2 doing that instead.
> >>>
> >>> Both are ugly. Just do:
> >>>
> >>> if (err)
> >>> pr_err(...);
> >>>
> >>> Rob
> >>
> >> Agreed. Thanks for the touch of sanity Rob.
> >>
> >> -Frank
> >
> > I succumbed to looking only at the few lines of code above and not the
> > fuller context of the file that the patch applies to.
> >
> > The proposed patch was fixing the problem that a normal completion
> > of the for loop was falling through into the err_out label. So what
> > looks cleaner ("if (err) pr_err(...)") is actually not correct.
>
> What!? The *only* problem was printing the error message in the err=0
> case. All that needs to be fixed is not doing that. If we do that,
> then we really only need 1 goto label.
I think you're right. Can you look at my v3 that I sent. I also tried to
fix cases where we can just do
return 0;
vs.
err = 0;
goto err
...
err:
of_node_put(NULL /*tree_symbols is NULL*/);
return err;
Thanks,
Moritz
On 11/29/16 07:06, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 11/26/16 13:39, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 11/23/16 13:58, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Moritz Fischer
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Frank Rowand <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/16 15:40, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/17/16 15:25, Moritz Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>> No longer fall through into the error case that prints out
>>>>>>>> an error if no error (err = 0) occurred.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fixes d9181b20a83(of: Add back an error message, restructured)
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 6 +++++-
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>>>>> index 783bd09..785076d 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -358,9 +358,13 @@ int of_resolve_phandles(struct device_node *overlay)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> err = update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference(overlay, prop, phandle);
>>>>>>>> if (err)
>>>>>>>> - break;
>>>>>>>> + goto err_out;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> + of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> err_out:
>>>>>>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>>>>>>> out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for catching that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rob, please apply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Frank
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On second thought, isn't the common pattern when clean up is needed for
>>>>>> both the no-error path and the error path something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> out:
>>>>>> of_node_put(tree_symbols);
>>>>>> return err;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> err_out:
>>>>>> pr_err("overlay phandle fixup failed: %d\n", err);
>>>>>> goto out;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have a strong opinion, whatever Rob wants to take is fine with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same here. I tried to avoid the jumping back part, but if that's the
>>>>> common pattern,
>>>>> I can submit a v2 doing that instead.
>>>>
>>>> Both are ugly. Just do:
>>>>
>>>> if (err)
>>>> pr_err(...);
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>
>>> Agreed. Thanks for the touch of sanity Rob.
>>>
>>> -Frank
>>
>> I succumbed to looking only at the few lines of code above and not the
>> fuller context of the file that the patch applies to.
>>
>> The proposed patch was fixing the problem that a normal completion
>> of the for loop was falling through into the err_out label. So what
>> looks cleaner ("if (err) pr_err(...)") is actually not correct.
>
> What!? The *only* problem was printing the error message in the err=0
> case. All that needs to be fixed is not doing that. If we do that,
> then we really only need 1 goto label.
>
> Rob
I misread your original suggestion to mean to put the "if (err) pr_err(...)"
inside the for loop, where Moritz had made his changes.
Now I understand what you really meant, to put the "if (err) pr_err(...)"
after the for loop.
Yes, that is a good way to do it.
Sorry for the extra noise....
-Frank