Updated. Same changelog
>> +       {
>> +         update_val (grub_strcmp (args[*argn], args[*argn + 2]) == 0);
>> +         (*argn) += 3;
> 
> I myself feel that these parentheses are redundant, but I don't know how 
> others think. For C programmers, it is well known that * has a very high 
> priority.
These parenthesis are necessary if doing sth like
(*argn)++
since ++ and += are logically and visually similar I prefer to put the 
parenthesis
> Getting tired, so I skip the same criticism from here.
Actually it would have been enough to say "same applies further on in patch"
>> +      if (*argn + 1 < argc && !grub_strcmp (args[*argn], "-s"))
>> +       {
>> +         grub_file_t file;
>> +         file = grub_file_open (args[*argn + 1]);
>> +         update_val (file && grub_file_size (file));
> 
> This is not very safe, because grub_file_size returns grub_off_t which is a 
> 64-bit unsigned int. By converting it into 32-bit signed int implicitly, the 
> result can be zero, even when the size is not zero. So it is better to say 
> explicitly, != 0.
> 

-- 

Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko