Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 16:28:13)
> On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 04:06:42 PM Sebastian Capella wrote:
> > 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;
>
> It uses simple_strtoul() for a reason. You can change the type of resume_delay
> to match, but the basic question is:
>
> Why exactly do you want to change that thing?
This entire patch is a result of a single checkpatch warning from a printk
that I indented.
I was hoping to be helpful by removing all of the warnings from this
file, since I was going to have a separate cleanup patch for the printk.
I can see this is not a good direction.
Would it be better also to leave the file's printks as they were and drop
the cleanup patch completely?
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