Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] trivial: PM / Hibernate: clean up checkpatch in hibernate.c

[Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@linaro.org>]

Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 16:28:13)
> On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 04:06:42 PM Sebastian Capella wrote:
> > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 16:03:29)
> > > On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 03:22:22 PM Sebastian Capella wrote:
> > > > Quoting Sebastian Capella (2014-02-04 14:37:33)
> > > > > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 13:36:29)
> > > > > > >  static int __init resumedelay_setup(char *str)
> > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > > -     resume_delay = simple_strtoul(str, NULL, 0);
> > > > > > > +     int ret = kstrtoint(str, 0, &resume_delay);
> > > > > > > +     /* mask must_check warn; on failure, leaves resume_delay unchanged */
> > > > > > > +     (void)ret;
> > > > 
> > > > One unintended consequence of this change is that it'll now accept a
> > > > negative integer parameter.
> > > 
> > > Well, what about using kstrtouint(), then?
> > I was thinking of doing something like:
> > 
> >       int delay, res;
> >       res = kstrtoint(str, 0, &delay);
> >       if (!res && delay >= 0)
> >               resume_delay = delay;
> >       return 1;
> 
> It uses simple_strtoul() for a reason.  You can change the type of resume_delay
> to match, but the basic question is:
> 
> Why exactly do you want to change that thing?

This entire patch is a result of a single checkpatch warning from a printk
that I indented.

I was hoping to be helpful by removing all of the warnings from this
file, since I was going to have a separate cleanup patch for the printk.

I can see this is not a good direction.

Would it be better also to leave the file's printks as they were and drop
the cleanup patch completely?

Thanks,

Sebastian


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>