Message-ID: <4D8A1CB7.4090505@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:15:51 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20110122 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
CC: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a kstrtobool function matching semantics of existing
 in kernel equivalents.
References: <1300887554-19031-1-git-send-email-jic23@cam.ac.uk> <1300887554-19031-2-git-send-email-jic23@cam.ac.uk> <AANLkTimeEKjVwwYi+twb0oeoFK-33LMx5aQBZEnPodne@mail.gmail.com> <20110323160120.GA8770@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110323160120.GA8770@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1958
Lines: 54

On 03/23/11 16:01, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 05:30:11PM +0200, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> +int kstrtobool(const char *s, bool *res)
>>> +{
>>> +       switch (s[0]) {
>>> +       case 'y':
>>> +       case 'Y':
>>> +       case '1':
>>> +               *res = true;
>>> +       case 'n':
>>> +       case 'N':
>>> +       case '0':
>>> +               *res = false;
>>> +       default:
>>> +               return -EINVAL;
>>> +       }
>>> +       return 0;
>>> +}
>>
>> sigh... such simple thing and so many bugs
Yeah, not by best work.
>>
>> The only values such function should accept is 0 and 1.
> 
> Why?  That's not the way the existing kernel functions that use this
> work.
> 
>> Have you read the rest of kstrto*() code?
>> Where is newline check?
There are plenty of nastier cases that get through than a newline
in the middle of the string (ybobsyouruncle -> 1 nyes->0 :)
>>
>> Anyway, I think it's better do not exist.
> 
> I think it is, as it's already duplicated in at least 2 different places
> in the kernel, and probably more.  Once we get this implementation
> working correctly, we don't need to rewrite it again.
Perhaps naming it like this is a bad idea.  It manages to imply that it
has the same level of strict checking which is seen in the other kstrto*
functions - which is self evidently not true!

The alternative is to try and pin down future interfaces to a narrower set
of 'true' and 'false' values.  We can't realistically change this pair,
(even to 'fix' them) but maybe we can ensure future versions only take 0 or 1?
That sort of simple convention would make life simpler!

Jonathan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/