From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Capella Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] trivial: PM / Hibernate: clean up checkpatch in hibernate.c Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 16:24:13 -0800 Message-ID: <20140205002413.7648.33035@capellas-linux> References: <1391546631-7715-1-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org> <1593382.PUxxx0NMeh@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140205000642.6803.8182@capellas-linux> <2342041.V7doIJk0XQ@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <2342041.V7doIJk0XQ@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org, Pavel Machek , Len Brown List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.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 =3D simple_strtoul(str, NULL, 0); > > > > > > > + int ret =3D kstrtoint(str, 0, &resume_delay); > > > > > > > + /* mask must_check warn; on failure, leaves resume_dela= y 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 =3D kstrtoint(str, 0, &delay); > > if (!res && delay >=3D 0) > > resume_delay =3D 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: email@kvack.org