lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] Input: convert obsolete strict_strtox to kstrtox
Date
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:47:36 +0800, JJ Ding <jj_ding@emc.com.tw> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 22:28:01 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 07:59:30PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > >
> > > Applied, thanks JJ.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, I take it back...
> >
> > > - if (strict_strtoul(buf, 10, &value) || value > 1)
> > > + if (kstrtouint(buf, 10, &value) || value > 1)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > This mangles error condition from kstrtouint and reporting conditions
> > beside -EINVAL was the reason for introducing new API IIRC. The proper
> > conversion should be:
> >
> > err = kstrtouint(buf, 10, &value);
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> >
> > if (value > 1)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>
> Thanks, I get it. I'll fix and resend.
>
> jj
>

Thinking a bit more about your suggestion, and looking at the code more
closely, some uses of these conversions really want a u8, and some want a
bool. I think I should check the data type where these converted values
are really used, and use a more appropriate kstrtox.

And for those that just need a bool, do you think using strtobool
introduced in commit d0f1fed29e6e73d9d17f4c91a5896a4ce3938d45 OK?
That way the user may even type [NnYy01].

What do you think about the approach above?

Thanks,
jj

> > --
> > Dmitry


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-08 09:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans