Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: replace simple_strtoul with kstrtoint

[Marcin Ciupak <marcin.s.ciupak@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 02:36:47PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 03:53:00PM +0100, Marcin Ciupak wrote:
> > Replace simple_strtoul with kstrtoint.
> 
> Why?
Because  
> > simple_strtoul is marked for obsoletion.
as reported by checkpatch.pl.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marcin Ciupak <marcin.s.ciupak@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_mount.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_mount.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_mount.c
> > index 8e0d4b1d86dc..4a604e9b3e49 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_mount.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_mount.c
> > @@ -924,12 +924,24 @@ static int lmd_parse(char *options, struct lustre_mount_data *lmd)
> >  			lmd->lmd_flags |= LMD_FLG_ABORT_RECOV;
> >  			clear++;
> >  		} else if (strncmp(s1, "recovery_time_soft=", 19) == 0) {
> > -			lmd->lmd_recovery_time_soft = max_t(int,
> > -				simple_strtoul(s1 + 19, NULL, 10), time_min);
> > +			int res;
> > +
> > +			rc = kstrtoint(s1 + 19, 10, &res);
> > +			if (rc)
> > +				lmd->lmd_recovery_time_soft = time_min;
> > +			else
> > +				lmd->lmd_recovery_time_soft = max_t(int, res,
> > +								    time_min);
> 
> Are you sure this is correct?  Do you really want to use max_t()?  Why
> is time_min used if there is an error?  Can't this all be written a lot
> simpler to actually make it semi-sane?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

max_t() and time_min were already used in the original code, I did not want to change
that.

Regarding error handling, I saw two options here:
1. update variable with some fail-safe value and time_min looked good
for that or,
2. do not update anything and do nothing or "goto invalid:" but I was not sure
about that, so selected first option.

If first option is not the best one, what would be better in case of error handling?

Thanks,
Marcin