Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH] batctl: Add timeout filtering option for originators

["Linus Lüssing" <linus.luessing@web.de>]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:35:49PM +0200, Marek Lindner wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 June 2010 20:03:13 Linus Lüssing wrote:
> > +	char msecs_buff[4];
> > +	memset(msecs_buff, '0', sizeof(msecs_buff));
> > +	msecs_buff[3] = '\0';
>
> Shouldn't a simple 
> memset(msecs_buff, 0, sizeof(msecs_buff));
> be enough ?
The intention of the msecs_buff was, to do some zeroed alignment
which is not possible with sscanf automatically (so without it, a
-t 0.99 were converted to 99ms instead of 990).
The last one is is for just marking the end of the string (note,
'0' != '\0' ;) ).
> 
> 
> 
> > +			if (sscanf(optarg, "%3d.%3s", &orig_timeout_secs,
> > +			else if (sscanf(optarg, "%3d", &orig_timeout_secs) == 1) { ; }
> > +			else {
> 
> I don't quite understand the sense of the "else if" here. You could also 
> write:
> else if (sscanf(optarg, "%3d", &orig_timeout_secs) != 1)
Yep, you're right, I guess I was thinking too 'imperative' here
:D.
> and write no else block but I don't see why 1 second should be accepted and 
> nothing else ?
Nope, sscanf returns the number of succesfully scanned values, so
the 1 is not actually 1sec. But you're right, it can't read more
than 1 with only one %d in it anyway, so checking sscanf() < 1
would be fine too.

Anyway, I guess you're right, that integer arithmetics was pretty
much like using a slegdehammer to crack a nut in this case :).

See new patches for a less 'creative' approach :P.
> 
> Regards,
> Marek
> 

Cheers, Linus