On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:27 PM andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:29:11PM +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: > > > Hmm, I actually did not give much thought to that -1. > > I'll check into this and see about a V3. > > It may make more sense to just fix the original > > `__sysfs_match_string()`, but I'll need to go through the users of > > this function and see. > > I was thinking about existing users of such (with "gaps") cases. > Not all of them have NULL there and would like to avoid some members. > Though, I think that we may ignore NULL items if -1 is supplied. > > Think as well about ARRAY_SIZE() as given to that. > I am a bit vague on what you are proposing. Is it: a) Leave __sysfs_match_string() as-is and introduce a new `__sysfs_match_string_with_gaps()` helper/variant ? b) Fix __sysfs_match_string() to break/exit on the first NULL, only if -1 is provided ? Either is fine, but I wanted to clarify. Thanks Alex > And consider to fix match_string() accordingly. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > >
