Re: [PATCH v3 07/29] selftests/resctrl: Refactor get_cbm_mask() and rename to get_full_cbm()

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote:

> Hi Ilpo,
> 
> On 12/11/2023 4:18 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> 
> > -int get_cbm_mask(char *cache_type, char *cbm_mask)
> > +static int get_bit_mask(const char *filename, unsigned long *mask)
> >  {
> > -	char cbm_mask_path[1024];
> >  	FILE *fp;
> >  
> > -	if (!cbm_mask)
> > +	if (!filename || !mask)
> >  		return -1;
> >  
> > -	sprintf(cbm_mask_path, "%s/%s/cbm_mask", INFO_PATH, cache_type);
> > -
> > -	fp = fopen(cbm_mask_path, "r");
> > +	fp = fopen(filename, "r");
> >  	if (!fp) {
> > -		ksft_perror("Failed to open cache level");
> > -
> > +		fprintf(stderr, "Failed to open bit mask file '%s': %s\n",
> > +			filename, strerror(errno));
> >  		return -1;
> >  	}
> > -	if (fscanf(fp, "%s", cbm_mask) <= 0) {
> > -		ksft_perror("Could not get max cbm_mask");
> > +
> > +	if (fscanf(fp, "%lx", mask) <= 0) {
> > +		fprintf(stderr, "Could not read bit mask file '%s': %s\n",
> > +			filename, strerror(errno));
> >  		fclose(fp);
> >  
> >  		return -1;
> 
> After seeing the new effort to correct the perror() messages it is
> not obvious to me why this patch changes these particular messages to
> use fprintf(stderr, ...).

Yeah, good point, thanks. Somehow I dismissed the opportunity and thought 
there's no need to do anything even if this came up during series conflict 
resolution phase.


-- 
 i.