On 4/26/17 2:40 AM, Jan Tulak wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 4/23/17 1:54 PM, Jan Tulak wrote: ... >>> + set_conf_raw(opts, index, str); >> So this is really an unrelated functional change here; ideally, this >> patch would come before the "raw option" patch. Once every option goes >> through getnum, /then/ you can add the raw storage to getnum(). >> >> Not a huge deal, but if you resend the series, you might consider that >> ordering. Otherwise I think this one looks ok :) > Well, we are saving the raw here ... and then reading it in printfs. > So if we want to avoid the situation from the previous set, where > input error prints changed the values (printing "1024" instead of > user-given "1k"), we have to use raw before we remove the getstr(), > not later. But then we might try to print something that didn't go > through getnum yet, so we don't have the string saved... which is why > I made it as one patch. Oh, I see. Ok, thanks - sorry for missing that. -Eric > Jan > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
