Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1530858040-13971-1-git-send-email-sayalil@codeaurora.org>
 <1530858040-13971-3-git-send-email-sayalil@codeaurora.org>
 <CAE=gft5U1-Jo-GvTF7sNAV3Q565AmuUrHpmBdxUL+UwkKxesqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <0dce9e9c-4f93-9857-72ee-f65ff195c41a@codeaurora.org> <CAE=gft6_=SQjgv7_kHXKJKa8_45NKKFwwE7UaXsijPpMd35LOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4cb931e199599314829f5ff750797c88fc123f1f.camel@wdc.com> <CAE=gft6zm2mw3rnNuktDe0NWs-NM1CFQw1BUeGhaBi3eoEDXBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8e6af8ed-1ec0-f10e-69b2-08281b638a4b@codeaurora.org>
In-Reply-To: <8e6af8ed-1ec0-f10e-69b2-08281b638a4b@codeaurora.org>
From:   Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 2018 16:39:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE=gft4S9_H-PgpUHVrmjq4uah8pGKH+4A9xph+L=yButpqEpA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 2/2] scsi: ufs: Add configfs support for ufs provisioning
To:     sayalil@codeaurora.org
Cc:     Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com, Vinayak Holikatti <vinholikatti@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, asutoshd@codeaurora.org,
        riteshh@codeaurora.org, cang@codeaurora.org,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com, subhashj@codeaurora.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
        jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:46 AM Sayali Lokhande <sayalil@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Evan,
>
>
> On 7/18/2018 1:53 AM, Evan Green wrote:
...
> > I'm not dead set on binary, since as above I could do it either way,
> > but it seemed worth at least talking through. Let me know what you
> > think.
> > -Evan
>
> I am using ASCII format for reading/writing to config desc as it will be
> more readable for users and easier/comfortable to compare any value to
> default spec value(if required).
> So I don't really see any harm in using current ASCII format for
> provisioning purpose.

I'm not convinced by those arguments, but ultimately it's between you
and the maintainers. If you're going with the ASCII route, then I have
another review comment. Currently in your patch, if kstrtoint fails,
you print, but then break out of the loop and try to write the
partially parsed descriptor anyway. That "break" should probably be
changed to a "goto out".

-Evan