Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 16:03:29)
> On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 03:22:22 PM Sebastian Capella wrote:
> > Quoting Sebastian Capella (2014-02-04 14:37:33)
> > > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 13:36:29)
> > > > > static int __init resumedelay_setup(char *str)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - resume_delay = simple_strtoul(str, NULL, 0);
> > > > > + int ret = kstrtoint(str, 0, &resume_delay);
> > > > > + /* mask must_check warn; on failure, leaves resume_delay unchanged */
> > > > > + (void)ret;
> >
> > One unintended consequence of this change is that it'll now accept a
> > negative integer parameter.
>
> Well, what about using kstrtouint(), then?
I was thinking of doing something like:
int delay, res;
res = kstrtoint(str, 0, &delay);
if (!res && delay >= 0)
resume_delay = delay;
return 1;
> Well, kstrtoint() is used in some security-sensitive places AFAICS, so it
> really is better to check its return value in general. The __must_check
> reminds people about that.
Thanks!
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href