On 11/08/2011 06:41 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:47 AM, JJ Ding <jj_ding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:47:36 +0800, JJ Ding <jj_ding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 22:28:01 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 07:59:30PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Applied, thanks JJ. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry, I take it back... >>>> >>>>> - if (strict_strtoul(buf, 10, &value) || value > 1) >>>>> + if (kstrtouint(buf, 10, &value) || value > 1) >>>>> return -EINVAL; >>>> >>>> This mangles error condition from kstrtouint and reporting conditions >>>> beside -EINVAL was the reason for introducing new API IIRC. The proper >>>> conversion should be: >>>> >>>> err = kstrtouint(buf, 10, &value); >>>> if (err) >>>> return err; >>>> >>>> if (value > 1) >>>> return -EINVAL; >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, I get it. I'll fix and resend. >>> >>> jj >>> >> >> Thinking a bit more about your suggestion, and looking at the code more >> closely, some uses of these conversions really want a u8, and some want a >> bool. I think I should check the data type where these converted values >> are really used, and use a more appropriate kstrtox. > > If some really want full u8 range then yes, I agree, kstrtou8 is best. For > ones where we have just a few valid values I think we should stick with > conversing to unsigned int and then validate the range manually. > >> >> And for those that just need a bool, do you think using strtobool >> introduced in commit d0f1fed29e6e73d9d17f4c91a5896a4ce3938d45 OK? >> That way the user may even type [NnYy01]. > > I do not like strtobool because it is sloppy. It will also accept 10, yoda, nada > and similar inputs as correct. > plenty of room for kstrtobool if anyone wants to take it on... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
