From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 08:44:09 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] FIX: fat: Provide correct return code from disk_{read|write} to upper layers In-Reply-To: <1441282899-13569-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com> References: <1440769821-24005-2-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com> <1441282899-13569-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com> Message-ID: <20150903124409.GA26226@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:21:39PM +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > It is very common that FAT code is using following pattern: > if (disk_{read|write}() < 0) > return -1; > > Up till now the above code was dead, since disk_{read|write) could only > return value >= 0. > As a result some errors from medium layer (i.e. eMMC/SD) were not caught. > > The above behavior was caused by block_{read|write|erase} declared at > struct block_dev_desc (@part.h). It returns unsigned long, where 0 > indicates error and > 0 indicates that medium operation was correct. > > This patch as error regards 0 returned from block_{read|write|erase} > when nr_blocks is grater than zero. Read/Write operation with nr_blocks=0 > should return 0 and hence is not considered as an error. > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski > > Test HW: Odroid XU3 - Exynos 5433 Can you pick up Stephen's FAT replacement series and see if it also fixes this problem? Thanks! -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: