That's because I hesitate which DOS last error to return. I know that we have to specify one, but I need to recheck (and if Aleksander knows, he can fix that). H.
-----Message d'origine----- De : Ros-dev [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] De la part de Pierre Schweitzer Envoyé : jeudi 26 mars 2015 16:21 À : ros-dev@reactos.org Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [hbelusca] 66903: [NTVDM] - Fix some english. - Validity checks for DosGetSftEntry returned pointer added. - Use unsigned indices for for-loops indices that are always positive.
On 03/26/2015 03:52 PM, hbelusca@svn.reactos.org wrote:
Modified: trunk/reactos/subsystems/mvdm/ntvdm/dos/dos32krnl/bios.c URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/subsystems/mvdm/ntvdm /dos/dos32krnl/bios.c?rev=66903&r1=66902&r2=66903&view=diff ============================================================================== --- trunk/reactos/subsystems/mvdm/ntvdm/dos/dos32krnl/bios.c [iso-8859-1] (original) +++ trunk/reactos/subsystems/mvdm/ntvdm/dos/dos32krnl/bios.c [iso-8859-1] Thu Mar 26 14:52:16 2015 @@ -56,6 +56,13 @@ BOOLEAN DosCheckInput(VOID) { PDOS_SFT_ENTRY SftEntry = DosGetSftEntry(DOS_INPUT_HANDLE);
- if (SftEntry == NULL)
- {
/* Invalid handle */DosLastError = ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE; // ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND
Hum... Why?
Is the error code wrong and should be ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND? And then, why setting this other error code? Or is the error code right, and then, what's the purpose of such comment? Or do you have a doubt about the right error code to use? Be it one or the other?
I come back to my eternal comment: don't comment for yourself. Comment for the others, you're not alone here. So, make it explicit.
Cheers, -- Pierre Schweitzer pierre@reactos.org System & Network Administrator Senior Kernel Developer ReactOS Deutschland e.V.