On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 04:45:43PM +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: > 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. The current logic something like "-1 to go till first NULL" and ARRAY_SIZE() in *some* cases is basically the synonym to above. What I meant is to check if there is *any* case where ARRAY_SIZE() behaves in the same way as -1. Those cases should be fixed accordingly. Otherwise, the b) is what would be preferred according to the discussion. > > And consider to fix match_string() accordingly. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
