On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:30:17 +0800 Yi Yang wrote: > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 09:03 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:18:22 +0800 Yi Yang wrote: > > > > > Currently, for every sysfs node, the callers will be responsible for > > > implementing store operation, so many many callers are doing duplicate > > > things to validate input, they have the same mistakes because they are > > > calling simple_strtol/ul/ll/ull, especially for module params, they are > > > just numeric, but you can echo such values as 0x1234xxx, 07777888 and > > > 1234aaa, for these cases, module params store operation just ignores > > > successive invalid char and converts prefix part to a numeric although > > > input is actually invalid. > > > > > > This patch tries to fix the aforementioned issues and implements > > > real_strtox > > > serial functions, kernel/params.c uses them to strictly validate input, > > > so module params will reject such values as 0x1234xxxx and returns an > > > error: > > > > How about a prefix of safe_ or strict_ or something other than real_? > > real_ sounds too much like a real number function string parser. > > > I named it as strict_ at the beginning, but it results in some alignment > issues checkpatch.pl will always warn, i don't know if warnings will > make the patch out of the door. > > In kernel/params.c, STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(a function definition macro) will > be over 80 chars, is it correct coding style to split it to two lines?
Yes, if it can be done cleanly. Otherwise just leave it long (IMHO). --- ~Randy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
