Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] lib: new helper kstrtodev_t()
From: Uwe Kleine-König
Date: Thu Feb 20 2020 - 05:57:28 EST
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 12:22:36PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:49 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 09:50:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:27 AM Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This function is in the same spirit as the other kstrto* functions and
> > > > uses the same calling convention. It expects the input string to be in
> > > > the format %u:%u and implements stricter parsing than sscanf as it
> > > > returns an error on trailing data (other than the usual \n).
> > > On top of that, why kstrtodev_t is so important? How many users are
> > > already in the kernel to get an advantage out of it?
> > Does it need to be important? It matches the other kstrto* functions and
> > so it seemed more natural to me to put it near the other functions. I'm
> > not aware of other potential users and surprised you seem to suggest
> > this as a requirement.
> Yes it does. The kstrtox() are quite generic, what you are proposing
> is rather one particular case with blurry understanding how many users
> will be out of it.
In my understanding one user is a hard requirement.
> If you had told "look, we have 1234 users which may benefit out of
> it", I would have given no comment against.
Sure, having >1000 potential users would be a good argument pro this
function. But having only one isn't a good contra IMHO.
> > > What to do with all other possible variants ("%d:%d", "%dx%d" and its
> > > %u variant, etc)?
> > I don't see how %d:%d is relevant, major and minor cannot be negative
> > can they? I never saw 'x' as separator between major and minor. I
> > considered shortly parsing %u, but given that (I think) this is an
> > internal representation only I chose to not make it more visible than it
> > already is.
> See above, if we are going to make it generic, perhaps better to cover
> more possible users, right?
> Otherwise your change provokes pile of (replaced)
> kstrto_resolution() /* %ux:%u */
> kstrto_range() /* %d:%d */
Given there are respective types that this can be stored to, I don't
object more functions of this type and don't see a good reason to not
add such a function. And in my eyes I prefer to have such a function in
a visible place (i.e. where all the other kstrto* functions are) to
prevent code duplication.
Also I don't understand yet, what you want me to do. Assume I'd be
willing to use simple_strtoul, I'd still want to have a function that
gives me a dev_t from a given string. Should I put this directly in my
> > > Why simple_strto*() can't be used?
> > I didn't really consider it, but looking in more detail I don't like it
> > much. Without having tried it I think simple_strtoull accepts
> > "1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000" returning some arbitrary
> > value without an error indication.
> So what? User has a lot of possibilities to shoot into the foot.
> Since you interpret this as device major:minor, not founding a device
> will be first level of error, next one when your code will try to do
> something out of it. It shouldn't be a problem of kstrtox generic
I fail to follow your argument here. In my eyes if the user writes a
valid major:minor it should work, and if they write an invalid one this
should result in an error and not a usage of a device that just happens
to have the major:minor that simple_strtoull happens to return for the
> > And given that I was asked for strict
> > parsing (i.e. not accepting 2:4:something) I'd say using simple_strto*
> > is a step backwards. Also simple_strtoul() has "This function is obsolete.
> > Please use kstrtoul instead." in its docstring which seems to apply to
> > the other simple_strto*() functions, too.
> I specifically fixed a doc string to approve its use in the precisely
> cases you have here.
Can you please be a bit more constructive here and point to the change
you talk about? I didn't find a commit in next.
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |