On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 13:03:59 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> So why not revert to the known-working simple_strtoul()? I don't see this as > an > improvement: > > > + /* > > + * In case the input is like console with text after the baud > > + * rate. e.g. 115200n8. kstrtoul() will error on such input. > > + */ > > + for (p = s; *p && isdigit(*p); p++) > > + ; > > + *p = 0; > > + > > if (kstrtoul(s, 0, &baud) < 0 || baud == 0) > > baud = DEFAULT_BAUD; > > > Over the old: > > baud = simple_strtoul(s, &e, 0); > That was what I actually did first, but then saw this: * Returns 0 on success, -ERANGE on overflow and -EINVAL on parsing error. * Used as a replacement for the obsolete simple_strtoull. Return code must * be checked. in lib/kstrtox.c and thought that it seems that we are trying to phase out that function. Personally, I prefer keeping it for instances like this. So by all means, put back the simple_strtoul(); I would like that too. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
