Re: [PATCH 1/2] kstrto*: converting strings to integers done (hopefully) right

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 00:46:17 +0300
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. simple_strto*() suck because they do not contain overflow checks
>    and crufty, libc way to indicate failure.
> 2. strict_strto*() also do not have overflow checks but the name
>    and comments pretend they do.
> 3. Both have only "long long" and "long" versions, but users want
>    e. g. strtouint()
> 4. Both "simple" and "strict" prefixes are wrong:
>    Simple doesn't say what's so simple, strict should not exist because
>    conversion should be strict by default.
> 
>    The solution is to use "k" prefix and add convertors for more types.
> 
>    Enter
> 
>    	kstrtoull(),
> 	kstrtoll(),
> 	kstrtoul(),
> 	kstrtol(),
> 	kstrtouint(),
> 	kstrtoint(),
> 	kstrtou64(),
> 	kstrtos64(),
> 	kstrtou32(),
> 	kstrtos32(),
> 	kstrtou16(),
> 	kstrtos16(),
> 	kstrtou8(),
> 	kstrtos8()

aw man, you're killin me.  That means 100000 stupid "convert to kstro*"
patches and 10000 "please use kstrto*" comments from patch reviewers. 
Or at least, one patch reviewer :(

For new code I'd like to see a checkpatch "hey dummy you used the old
API" rule, please.  For old code I think I'd punt any cleanup patches
in a Jiriwards direction, OK?

But right now I'm wondering if the problems you've identified are big
enough to bother fixing.