Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <d0fecef2-34bb-3e35-cc7f-0035eaaa8a27@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Dec 2022 09:37:31 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] RDMA/srp: Fix error return code in
 srp_parse_options()
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        <leon@kernel.org>, <dennis.dalessandro@cornelisnetworks.com>
CC:     <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, <bart.vanassche@wdc.com>,
        <easwar.hariharan@intel.com>
References: <1669687459-14180-1-git-send-email-wangyufen@huawei.com>
 <1669687459-14180-2-git-send-email-wangyufen@huawei.com>
 <b4d78eb0-4492-ac7f-d500-3d49b0dc7aa1@acm.org>
 <65604aae-b722-4caf-3373-d0f1e4492faa@huawei.com>
 <1d27a774-cf83-6e36-4fa1-c0635ebfd79e@acm.org>
From:   wangyufen <wangyufen@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d27a774-cf83-6e36-4fa1-c0635ebfd79e@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


在 2022/12/1 2:00, Bart Van Assche 写道:
> On 11/29/22 19:31, wangyufen wrote:
>> I'm so sorry for the poor patch description. Is the following 
>> description OK?
>>
>> In the previous iteration of the while loop, "ret" may have been 
>> assigned a value of 0, so the error return code -EINVAL may have been 
>> incorrectly set to 0.
>> Also, investigate each case separately as Andy suggessted. If the help 
>> function match_int() fails, the error code is returned, which is 
>> different from the warning information printed before. If the parsing 
>> result token is incorrect, "-EINVAL" is returned and the original 
>> warning information is printed.
> 
> Please reply below instead of above. See also 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style.
> 

Thanks, that's helpful.

> Regarding your question: not logging an error message if user input is 
> rejected is unfriendly to the user. I think it's better to keep the 
> behavior of reporting an error if a match* function fails instead of 
> reporting in the patch description that the behavior has changed.
> 

> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
> 
>