Message-ID: <5fdb10e93535d83d208682e2eb5514fa1d5b6240.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] um: os_set_fd_block: Return old blocking mode
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, linux-um@lists.infradead.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com
Date:   Tue, 04 Jan 2022 10:00:25 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20220101215810.13260-3-richard@nod.at>
References: <20220101215810.13260-1-richard@nod.at>
         <20220101215810.13260-3-richard@nod.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.2 (3.42.2-1.fc35) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 2022-01-01 at 22:58 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> This will be needed when we restore the old mode upon exit.
> The function now returns < 0 in case of an error, 1 if O_NONBLOCK
> was set, 0 otherwise.
> 
> +++ b/arch/um/drivers/chan_user.c
> @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static int winch_tramp(int fd, struct tty_port *port, int *fd_out,
>  	}
>  
>  	err = os_set_fd_block(*fd_out, 0);
> -	if (err) {
> +	if (err < 0) {
>  		printk(UM_KERN_ERR "winch_tramp: failed to set thread_fd "
>  		       "non-blocking.\n");
>  		goto out_close;

This does 'return err' afterwards, which then changes the logic from 0
to 1, which seems wrong - especially given that it gets passed further
elsewhere as a pid, which seems very questionable in the first place,
but at least 1 would be valid pid unlike 0?

IOW, I think you need

-	return err;
+	return 0;

a couple of lines later.

johannes