Hi!
> > >> I guess the initial mail somehow didn't make it through your spam filter:
> > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/1/70
> > > It did, but I thought that people asked for it to be changed in the
> > > thread afterwards, so I was expecting an updated version from you.
> > >
> > > Care to fix things up and resend it?
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> > Sure, the change I was asked for is trivial, but I didn't get the reason
> > why it is needed. Neither there is a reply to my follow-up comment [0].
> > Sorry, I am pretty much new on LKML and could miss things that are
> > supposed to be clear from the start, but my impression is that when
> > someone says "it is better", he/she should explain why it is better or
> > at least what is wrong with the patch he/she wants to be changed.
> >
> > However, I don't want to enter some arguing loop, so if you think I
> > should change the code as per Joe's comment, just confirm it and I'll do it.
>
> Please try.
Not checking sscanf() return is un-nice, so yes, it would be nice to
fix it, even if it will not happen in practice. 0 / -EINVAL is
acceptable return value.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
