* Peter Hurley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/04/2015 09:20 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 13:03:59 +0200
> > Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * In case the input is like console with text after the baud
> >>> + * rate. e.g. 115200n8. kstrtoul() will error on such input.
> >>> + */
> >>> + for (p = s; *p && isdigit(*p); p++)
> >>> + ;
> >>> + *p = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> if (kstrtoul(s, 0, &baud) < 0 || baud == 0)
> >>> baud = DEFAULT_BAUD;
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This was actually one of those cases where I wanted to show that keeping
> > the
> > old function around is better than the alternative ;-)
> >
> > If people say we need to phase out simple_strtoull(), then I wanted to show
> > what kinds of hacks we will have if that happens.
> >
> > I was hoping that someone would point out that simple_strtoull() is a
> > better
> > solution. :)
>
> And made worse by the fact that checkpatch flags simple_strtoul* as obsolete,
> so
> people keep submitting junk like above [1] in an effort to escape the
> checkpatch
> warning.
>
> Which I pointed out to Joe back in Feb. (https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/25/217)
So this kind of checkpatch-driven crap really needs to stop.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
