Hi! > > >> I guess the initial mail somehow didn't make it through your spam filter: > > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/1/70 > > > It did, but I thought that people asked for it to be changed in the > > > thread afterwards, so I was expecting an updated version from you. > > > > > > Care to fix things up and resend it? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > Sure, the change I was asked for is trivial, but I didn't get the reason > > why it is needed. Neither there is a reply to my follow-up comment [0]. > > Sorry, I am pretty much new on LKML and could miss things that are > > supposed to be clear from the start, but my impression is that when > > someone says "it is better", he/she should explain why it is better or > > at least what is wrong with the patch he/she wants to be changed. > > > > However, I don't want to enter some arguing loop, so if you think I > > should change the code as per Joe's comment, just confirm it and I'll do it. > > Please try. Not checking sscanf() return is un-nice, so yes, it would be nice to fix it, even if it will not happen in practice. 0 / -EINVAL is acceptable return value. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
