* Jean Delvare <[email protected]> wrote:
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(byte, unsigned char, "%hhu\n",
> > kstrtou8);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(short, short, "%hi\n",
> > kstrtos16);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ushort, unsigned short, "%hu\n",
> > kstrtou16);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(int, int, "%i\n",
> > kstrtoint);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(uint, unsigned int, "%u\n",
> > kstrtouint);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(long, long, "%li\n",
> > kstrtol);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ulong, unsigned long, "%lu\n",
> > kstrtoul);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ullong, unsigned long long, "%llu\n",
> > kstrtoull);
>
> Sure it is possible to add a new parameter type. But why would the
> person adding it forget the \n?
Because they are human? I certainly forgot similar details when writing code,
numerous times, and making constructs more robust against mistakes is half of
my job as a maintainer. This is kernel design 101.
> I can't imagine that someone adding a
> new type would type the new line of code character by character. Such an
> operation is calling for copy, paste and edit, at which point there is
> no reason why the \n would be actively deleted. Or this is sabotage,
> really ;-)
WTF? Really, I've given you useful feedback in the last couple of days, and my
suggestions were generally correct and on topic, still your replies were
passive-aggressive, obtuse and generally foul tempered in every single case.
Just the latest example:
> Aligning parameters vertically as you suggest above is probably a good
> idea for overall readability anyway, so I can change my patch to do
> that, as I am modifying these lines anyway. It is pretty much
> independent from the fix per se, but if it makes you happy...
I made a routine, technically valid suggestion that I made countless other
kernel developers in the past who sent me code with such a pattern, and
I do not appreciate your condescending tone, it's not about 'making me happy'.
You need to handle criticism of your patches properly and constructively.
Thanks,
Ingo
