From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Lendacky Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] amd-xgbe: Resolve checkpatch warning about sscanf usage Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:44:18 -0500 Message-ID: <53A9FF42.2090502@amd.com> References: <20140624211900.20681.46554.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net> <20140624211935.20681.85586.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net> <1403647225.29061.64.camel@joe-AO725> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , To: Joe Perches Return-path: Received: from mail-bl2lp0204.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([207.46.163.204]:32700 "EHLO na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752683AbaFXWov (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 18:44:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1403647225.29061.64.camel@joe-AO725> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/24/2014 05:00 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 16:19 -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: >> Checkpatch issued a warning preferring to use kstrto when >> using a single variable sscanf. Change the sscanf invocation to >> a kstrtouint call. > [] >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-debugfs.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-debugfs.c > [] >> @@ -165,10 +165,9 @@ static ssize_t xgbe_common_write(const char __user *buffer, size_t count, >> return len; >> >> workarea[len] = '\0'; >> - if (sscanf(workarea, "%x", &scan_value) == 1) >> - *value = scan_value; >> - else >> - return -EIO; >> + ret = kstrtouint(workarea, 0, value); > > Don't you need to use 16 for the base here? Using 0 allows for greater flexibility in the input format. > >> + if (ret) >> + return ret; > > Are there any issues with any of the various callers > getting a different error return? > > -EINVAL/-ERANGE vs -EIO ? > There shouldn't be, but I can always return -EIO to be consistent with how it was previously. Tom >