On Wednesday 24 February 2010 07:24:00 you wrote:Octavian Purdila wrote:Here is a new version of this patch which fixes both the comma andSorry, it is even worse. :(
invalid value issues, please give it a try.
[net-next PATCH v5 2/3] sysctl: add proc_do_large_bitmapWriting "50000-50100" gets EINVAL, it should be success.
The new function can be used to read/write large bitmaps via /proc. A
comma separated range format is used for compact output and input
(e.g. 1,3-4,10-10).
Writing "50000,50100" fails too.
Hmm, they don't fail for me :-/
Please, at least, do some basic testing.
I do test them, I've attached the current test batch I was using.
Anyways, today I've noticed that "1,2 3" does not fail and even more importantly the final value is "3".
Being that I don't see a way of fixing this without not acknowledging 1,2 even though we will do set these values, I revisited the "1 2 3" issue. And I don't understand why this is actually an issue, we are just being more permissive (i.e. we are allowing as separators both whitespaces and ,).
I will resend the whole patch series once we get this formatting issue resolved.