On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:35:08 -0400
Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to fix hex2bin() so that it returns -1 on error?
>
> Yes, that was the original idea, but in order to return a result, it
> needs to validate the input. The above code, or something similar,
> needs to exist somewhere, either in the new function or in hex2bin().
> Would something like this be any better?
>
> int hex2bin(u8 *dst, const char *src, size_t count)
> {
> while (count--) {
> int hi = hex_to_bin(*src++);
> int lo = hex_to_bin(*src++);
>
> if ((hi < 0) || (lo < 0))
> return -1;
>
> *dst++ = (hi << 4) | lo;
> }
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> > Then the above function becomes a one-liner:
> >
> > return hex2bin(dst, src, 2);
>
> Why bother? With something like this, there isn't a need for the new
> function. :-)
OK.
> > Finally, the name is poor. It starts with "unpack_", so it belongs to
> > the "unpack" subsystem. There's no such thing. Something like
> > hex_byte_to_bin() would be better.
>
> agreed. It was suppose to parallel the existing pack_hex_byte().
hex_byte_pack() :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
