reclaim: fix uninitialized status when LX_DIRECT_READ is used - #84
Open
miracoli wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
reclaim: fix uninitialized status when LX_DIRECT_READ is used#84miracoli wants to merge 1 commit into
miracoli wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR re-submits the fix originally proposed in #21.
The original PR has been open for some time, and the original author appears to have run into issues with the Eclipse Contributor Agreement (ECA), preventing the contribution from moving forward.
The change itself is unchanged: when LX_DIRECT_READ is enabled, status may be uninitialized on this error path. Returning LX_SYSTEM_ALLOCATION_FAILED directly ensures that the reported error matches the preceding _lx_nor_flash_system_error() call and avoids returning an undefined value.
Original PR: #21
Thanks to @jiri-novotny for identifying the issue and proposing the original fix.