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.

[Pierre Schweitzer]

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/…
>  ==============================================================================
>  --- 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.

[Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO]

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:[e-mail]] 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.

[Aleksey Bragin]

On 26.03.2015 18:56, Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO wrote:
>   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.
>  
Why don't you write so in the comment?

Regards,
Aleksey Bragin