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: <20200221085723.42469-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20200221145141.pchim24oht7nxfir@pengutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200221145141.pchim24oht7nxfir@pengutronix.de>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:27:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfR+X6Mw8ywKNW5mTomzmuHSM8ecQUhxtM=LUkWaSe9CA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] lib/vsprintf: update comment about simple_strto<foo>() functions
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:54 PM Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig
<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:57:23AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The commit 885e68e8b7b1 ("kernel.h: update comment about simple_strto<f=
oo>()
> > functions") updated a comment regard to simple_strto<foo>() functions, =
but
> > missed similar change in the vsprintf.c module.
> >
> > Update comments in vsprintf.c as well for simple_strto<foo>() functions=
.

...

> > - * This function is obsolete. Please use kstrtoull instead.
> > + * This function has caveats. Please use kstrtoull instead.

> I wonder if we instead want to create a set of functions that is
> versatile enough to cover kstrtoull and simple_strtoull. i.e. fix the
> rounding problems (that are the caveats, right?) and as calling
> convention use an errorvalued int return + an output-parameter of the
> corresponding type.

It wouldn't be possible to apply same rules to both. They both are
part of existing ABI.

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko