On 07/04/2015 09:20 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 13:03:59 +0200 > Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> + /* >>> + * 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; >> >> > > This was actually one of those cases where I wanted to show that > keeping the old function around is better than the alternative ;-) > > If people say we need to phase out simple_strtoull(), then I wanted to > show what kinds of hacks we will have if that happens. > > I was hoping that someone would point out that simple_strtoull() is a > better solution. :)
And made worse by the fact that checkpatch flags simple_strtoul* as obsolete, so people keep submitting junk like above [1] in an effort to escape the checkpatch warning. Which I pointed out to Joe back in Feb. (https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/25/217) Regards, Peter Hurley [1] or this recent submission On 05/26/2015 01:12 PM, Peter Hurley wrote: > On 05/22/2015 12:06 PM, Bin Gao wrote: > >> +{ >> + char str[4]; /* max 3 chars, plus a NULL terminator */ >> + char *p = options; >> + int i = 0; >> + >> + while (*p) { >> + if (i >= 4) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + if (*p == delimiter) { >> + str[i++] = 0; >> + if (endp) >> + *endp = p + 1; >> + return kstrtou8(str, 10, val); /* decimal, no hex */ >> + } >> + >> + str[i++] = *p++; >> + } > > Is all this to avoid using simple_strtoul()? > If yes, I'd rather you use simple_strtoul() like the rest of the console > code and ignore the (misguided) advice that simple_strtoul() is obsolete. -- 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/
