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(a)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(a)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(a)reactos.org>
System & Network Administrator
Senior Kernel Developer
ReactOS Deutschland e.V.