Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] cutils:change strtosz_suffix_unit function

[li guang]

在 2012-12-14五的 14:45 +0100，Igor Mammedov写道：
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:09:17 +0100
> Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > liguang <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > > if value to be translated is larger than INT64_MAX,
> > > this function will not be convenient for caller to
> > > be aware of it, so change a little for this.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: liguang <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > >  cutils.c |    3 ++-
> > >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/cutils.c b/cutils.c
> > > index 4f0692f..da05c9e 100644
> > > --- a/cutils.c
> > > +++ b/cutils.c
> >    /*
> >     * Convert string to bytes, allowing either B/b for bytes, K/k for KB,
> >     * M/m for MB, G/g for GB or T/t for TB. End pointer will be returned
> >     * in *end, if not NULL. Return -1 on error.
> >     */
> Size is not the only user of it, this function is used to convert KHz,... in
> target-i386/cpu.c, i.e. unit might be something else than 1024. That's why
> there is question about generalizing strtosz_suffix_unit() in future instead 
> of
> duplicating suffixed int parsing. And specialization for size with
> unit=1024 and enforcing limits could be made in strtosz_suffix() which is
> used by current size users.
> 
> 
> > > @@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ static int64_t suffix_mul(char suffix, int64_t unit)
> > >  int64_t strtosz_suffix_unit(const char *nptr, char **end,
> > >                              const char default_suffix, int64_t unit)
> > >  {
> > > -    int64_t retval = -1;
> > > +    int64_t retval = EINVAL;
> > >      char *endptr;
> > >      unsigned char c;
> > >      int mul_required = 0;
> > > @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ int64_t strtosz_suffix_unit(const char *nptr, char 
> > > **end,
> > >          goto fail;
> > >      }
> > >      if ((val * mul >= INT64_MAX) || val < 0) {
> > > +        retval = ERANGE;
> > >          goto fail;
> > >      }
> > >      retval = val * mul;
> > 
> > Your error codes aren't negative, and you failed to update the function
> > comment!
> Returning negative here is fine for now form target-i386/cpu.c pov.

OK


-- 
regards!
li guang