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, [e-mail] wrote:
> Modified: trunk/reactos/subsystems/mvdm/ntvdm/dos/dos32krnl/bios.c
> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos/trunk/reactos/subsystems/mvdm/ntvdm/dos/d...
> ==============================================================================
> --- 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 [e-mail]
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 : [e-mail]
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, [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
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