On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 18:29 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Gui Hecheng wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/lib/cmdline.c b/lib/cmdline.c > > > > index d4932f7..76a712e 100644 > > > > --- a/lib/cmdline.c > > > > +++ b/lib/cmdline.c > > > > @@ -121,11 +121,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_options); > > > > * @retptr: (output) Optional pointer to next char after parse > > > > completes > > > > * > > > > * Parses a string into a number. The number stored at @ptr is > > > > - * potentially suffixed with %K (for kilobytes, or 1024 bytes), > > > > - * %M (for megabytes, or 1048576 bytes), or %G (for gigabytes, or > > > > - * 1073741824). If the number is suffixed with K, M, or G, then > > > > - * the return value is the number multiplied by one kilobyte, one > > > > - * megabyte, or one gigabyte, respectively. > > > > + * potentially suffixed with K, M, G, T, P, E. > > > > */ > > > > > > > > unsigned long long memparse(const char *ptr, char **retptr) > > > > @@ -135,6 +131,15 @@ unsigned long long memparse(const char *ptr, char > > > > **retptr) > > > > unsigned long long ret = simple_strtoull(ptr, &endptr, 0); > > > > > > > > switch (*endptr) { > > > > + case 'E': > > > > + case 'e': > > > > + ret <<= 10; > > > > + case 'P': > > > > + case 'p': > > > > + ret <<= 10; > > > > + case 'T': > > > > + case 't': > > > > + ret <<= 10; > > > > case 'G': > > > > case 'g': > > > > ret <<= 10; > > > > > > Seems fine since unsigned long long is always at least 64 bits, but > > > perhaps also change simple_strtoull() to use kstrtoull() at the same time > > > since the former is deprecated? > > > > Yes, that is a point. But the deprecated function is a separate problem > > and may not be included in this patch. > > Also, I find that simple_strtoull is used in many places in the kernel > > code, it is better to replace it globally? > > > > If you're going to have a go at replacing the simple_strto*() functions > throughout the kernel, it's probably better to do it per subsystem (as > defined by the separate sections of MAINTAINERS) and propose the patches > individually to those maintainers. Once it has been removed entirely, you > can submit a patch to remove the functions themselves. > > Be aware that there are many callers to the deprecated functions so it may > take a significant amount of time.
Hmmmm...It may really take a long time. But I am not sure whether this is really a good idea to do this big replacement. Let's see whether anyone would like to share his opinions. -Gui -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/