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    [W:0.022 / U:0.084 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site