staging:ti dspbridge: replace simple_strtoul by strict_strtoul
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: Construct status message w/ kasprintf and emit it with dev_info
Next: [PATCH] arm/mach-ixp2000: Add missing comma - fix build failure
From: Andy Shevchenko on 28 Jul 2010 14:50 On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Ernesto Ramos <ernesto(a)ti.com> wrote: > Replace simple_strtoul by strict_strtoul in atoi function. In general the question what is the purpose here to do the change? > @@ -1023,7 +1025,9 @@ static s32 atoi(char *psz_buf) > base = 16; > } > > - return simple_strtoul(pch, NULL, base); > + ret_val = strict_strtoul(pch, base, &res); > + > + return ret_val ? : res; May be better to use explicit values in condition? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Ramos Falcon, Ernesto on 3 Aug 2010 13:40
Hi, >-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:andy.shevchenko(a)gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:44 PM >To: Ramos Falcon, Ernesto >Cc: gregkh(a)suse.de; Ramirez Luna, Omar; ohad(a)wizery.com; >ameya.palande(a)nokia.com; felipe.contreras(a)nokia.com; Guzman Lugo, Fernando; >linux-kernel(a)vger.kernel.org; Menon, Nishanth; linux-omap(a)vger.kernel.org >Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging:ti dspbridge: replace simple_strtoul by >strict_strtoul > >On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Ernesto Ramos <ernesto(a)ti.com> wrote: >> Replace simple_strtoul by strict_strtoul in atoi function. >In general the question what is the purpose here to do the change? > It is recommended to use strict_strtoul instead of simple_strtoul since ensures the string is really a valid unsigned long. This also removes checkpatch warning message. >> @@ -1023,7 +1025,9 @@ static s32 atoi(char *psz_buf) >> � � � � � � � �base = 16; >> � � � �} >> >> - � � � return simple_strtoul(pch, NULL, base); >> + � � � ret_val = strict_strtoul(pch, base, &res); >> + >> + � � � return ret_val ? : res; >May be better to use explicit values in condition? > I think this is ok as it is, I'm not sure but I think it maybe defined in any C ansi book, in this case if ret_val is unequal to 0 ret_val is returned. >-- >With Best Regards, >Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |