Hi Peter,
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 05:21:20PM +0300, Peter Mamonov wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Peter Mamonov <pmamonov@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> lib/misc.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/misc.c b/lib/misc.c
> index 62ddd6677..c7d5a0ca5 100644
> --- a/lib/misc.c
> +++ b/lib/misc.c
> @@ -79,38 +79,56 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(strtoul_suffix);
> int parse_area_spec(const char *str, loff_t *start, loff_t *size)
> {
> char *endp;
> - loff_t end;
> + loff_t end, _start, _size;
> + int ret = -1;
>
> if (!isdigit(*str))
> return -1;
>
> - *start = strtoull_suffix(str, &endp, 0);
> + _start = strtoull_suffix(str, &endp, 0);
>
> str = endp;
>
> if (!*str) {
> /* beginning given, but no size, assume maximum size */
> - *size = ~0;
> - return 0;
> + _size = ~0;
> + ret = 0;
> }
>
> - if (*str == '-') {
> + if (ret && *str == '-') {
> /* beginning and end given */
> - end = strtoull_suffix(str + 1, NULL, 0);
> - if (end < *start) {
> + if (!isdigit(*(str + 1)))
> + return ret;
> +
> + end = strtoull_suffix(str + 1, &endp, 0);
> + str = endp;
> + if (end < _start) {
> printf("end < start\n");
> - return -1;
> + return ret;
> }
> - *size = end - *start + 1;
> - return 0;
> + _size = end - _start + 1;
> + ret = 0;
> }
>
> - if (*str == '+') {
> + if (ret && *str == '+') {
> /* beginning and size given */
> - *size = strtoull_suffix(str + 1, NULL, 0);
> - return 0;
> + if (!isdigit(*(str + 1)))
> + return ret;
> +
> + _size = strtoull_suffix(str + 1, &endp, 0);
> + str = endp;
> + ret = 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (!ret && *str)
> + /* trailing symbols indicate invalid area spec */
> + ret = -1;
Is this correct? I would assume a whitespace should be fine. We only
do not get trailing whitespaces in here because current users pass in
argv[] elements which are split up at whitespaces. The check would
also deserve a separate patch.
> +
> + if (!ret) {
> + *start = _start;
> + *size = _size;
> }
>
> - return -1;
> + return ret;
I find this patch unnecessarily hard to review and also the end result
doesn't look optimal. Could you create a 'success:' label and jump to it
when everything is fine? That would make the additional if(ret) and
if(!ret) checks unnecessary.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
