On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:24:31 +0200 Dongsu Park <dpark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > unsigned long uidl;
> >
> > rc = kstrtoul(uidstr, 0, &uidl);
> > uidval = uidl;
>
> That's a good point. I'll do it.
>
> > > + if (rc)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > I don't get it. From my reading, kstrtouint->parse_integer() returns
> > "number of characters parsed or -E". So this code won't work. But
> > presumably it *does* work, so why?
>
> It's probably because kstrtouint() returns just 0 on success.
> That's what functions in the call chain of kstrtouint() -> kstrtoull() ->
> _kstrtoull() -> _parse_integer() are actually doing.
> _parse_integer() actually returns rv, i.e. number of characters parsed.
> But after that, if there's no error, _kstrtoull() simply returns 0.
whoa, wait, I was looking at the -mm tree which changes kstrtouint():
static inline int __must_check kstrtouint(const char *s, unsigned int base, unsigned int *res)
{
return parse_integer(s, base | PARSE_INTEGER_NEWLINE, res);
}
and
* Return number of characters parsed or -E.
...
*/
#define parse_integer(s, base, val) \
Alexey, doesn't this mean that code which does
if (kstrtouint(...))
return -EFOO;
will break? Is it intended that parse_integer-convert-*.patch will fix
every callsite in the kernel? If so, how do we know there haven't been
concurrent additions in -next which need review/conversion? Let alone
out-of-tree things...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
