Re: [PATCH v2] Input: convert obsolete strict_strtox to kstrtox

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>]

On 11/08/2011 06:41 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:47 AM, JJ Ding <jj_ding@emc.com.tw> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:47:36 +0800, JJ Ding <jj_ding@emc.com.tw> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 22:28:01 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 07:59:30PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Applied, thanks JJ.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I take it back...
>>>>
>>>>> -       if (strict_strtoul(buf, 10, &value) || value > 1)
>>>>> +       if (kstrtouint(buf, 10, &value) || value > 1)
>>>>>                 return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> This mangles error condition from kstrtouint and reporting conditions
>>>> beside -EINVAL was the reason for introducing new API IIRC. The proper
>>>> conversion should be:
>>>>
>>>>     err = kstrtouint(buf, 10, &value);
>>>>     if (err)
>>>>             return err;
>>>>
>>>>     if (value > 1)
>>>>             return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, I get it. I'll fix and resend.
>>>
>>> jj
>>>
>>
>> Thinking a bit more about your suggestion, and looking at the code more
>> closely, some uses of these conversions really want a u8, and some want a
>> bool. I think I should check the data type where these converted values
>> are really used, and use a more appropriate kstrtox.
> 
> If some really want full u8 range then yes, I agree, kstrtou8 is best. For
> ones where we have just a few valid values I think we should stick with
> conversing to unsigned int and then validate the range manually.
> 
>>
>> And for those that just need a bool, do you think using strtobool
>> introduced in commit d0f1fed29e6e73d9d17f4c91a5896a4ce3938d45 OK?
>> That way the user may even type [NnYy01].
> 
> I do not like strtobool because it is sloppy. It will also accept 10, yoda, nada
> and similar inputs as correct.
> 
plenty of room for kstrtobool if anyone wants to take it on...