Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:26:39 +0200 | From | Peter Oberparleiter <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] gcov: add gcov profiling infrastructure |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:26:22 +0200 > Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >>> Right - the sscanf would make sense if kernel parameters could contain >>> spaces (in that case it catches <number><blanks><garbage> input) which >>> it can't so strtoul() would indeed make more sense. I'll prepare an >>> updated patch and send it out later today. >> See below for the updated patch that uses strtoul instead of sscanf. >> This patch replaces kernel-constructor-support.patch in the -mm tree: > > umm, no it doesn't. I get the below incremental patch, against > gcov-add-gcov-profiling-infrastructure.patch:
Ah, right. That answers my question whether further changes should be posted as complete or incremental patches.
> --- a/kernel/gcov/fs.c~gcov-add-gcov-profiling-infrastructure-update > +++ a/kernel/gcov/fs.c > @@ -70,15 +70,8 @@ static int gcov_persist = 1; > > static int __init gcov_persist_setup(char *str) > { > - int val; > - char delim; > - > - if (sscanf(str, "%d %c", &val, &delim) != 1) { > - pr_warning("invalid gcov_persist parameter '%s'\n", str); > - return 0; > - } > - pr_info("setting gcov_persist to %d\n", val); > - gcov_persist = val; > + gcov_persist = simple_strtoul(str, NULL, 0); > + pr_info("setting gcov_persist to %d\n", gcov_persist); > > return 1; > } > _ > > arguably we should use strict_strtoul(), but the kernel is a lot less > fussy about boot parameters than it is with sysfs writes, etc. If you > fat-finger your grub.conf, you lose and we don't tell you.
Agreed. Which leads me to another question: is it ok to post many small patches for -mm for minor changes like this one (simple_ -> strict_) or do you rather prefer these to be collected into somewhat larger patches that fix multiple minor issues?
| |