On Friday, July 19, 2013 11:44 PM, Steffen Maier wrote:
>
> Hi, it would have been nice to also CC all affected driver maintainers.
> I only saw this by accident and noticed that it might collide with my
> patch queue. Even more so since much of your patch touches code which
> usually goes through different upstream contributors than the core s390
> architecture code.
I will be CC'ing affected driver maintainers.
[.....]
> >
> >> --- a/drivers/s390/net/qeth_l3_sys.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/s390/net/qeth_l3_sys.c
> >> @@ -208,11 +208,10 @@ static ssize_t qeth_l3_dev_sniffer_store(struct device *dev,
> >> goto out;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - rc = strict_strtoul(buf, 16, &i);
> >> - if (rc) {
> >> - rc = -EINVAL;
> >> + rc = kstrtoul(buf, 16, &i);
> >> + if (rc)
> >> goto out;
> >
> > This hunk e.g. changes the behaviour of a user space interface. Before
> > your patch -ERANGE was mapped to -EINVAL. Now it is not true anymore.
> > This may or may not be a problem, however I'd like to keep the behaviour
> > as is in order to not risk any user space breakage.
> >
> > So if you could resend a new version which just mechanically replaces
> > strict_strtoul() witch kstrtoul() that would be great.
>
> For zfcp we have exactly such a patch from Martin in my zfcp upstream
> queue which I would send to James in the near future.
I see.
I will NOT modify 'zfcp'.
I will send v2 patch which excludes 'zfcp'.
Best regards,
Jingoo Han
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
