Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3 V2] Introduce usr_strtobool (previously kstrtobool)

From: Jonathan Cameron
Date: Fri Apr 15 2011 - 09:25:33 EST

If no one has any comments on this, who is likely to pick it up?
> Here is a second pass at introducing a new function to unify
> code that is attempting to get a boolean value from user input strings.
> The first attempt (other than having some stupid bugs) was opposed by
> Alexy Dobriyan on the basis that it did completely insufficient checking
> on the string. Given that under the original proposed name it was
> associated with the other kstrto* functions it was reasonable to assume
> if would be as strict as they are. Hence the name change to remove
> an implication of this.
> The use cases are both the pair below and the numerous boolean
> attributes in sysfs. It's for these that I'm personally interested
> in having such a function, but as Greg pointed out a good starting
> point is to unify the places where this is already occuring.
> The big questions to my mind are:
> 1) Is the usr_strtobool name a good choice?
> 2) Should we introduce other acceptable boolean inputs?
> Clearly there are issues in changing the list as it will at least
> in theory change the two api's effected by this series.
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
> Jonathan Cameron (3):
> Add a usr_strtobool function matching semantics of existing in kernel
> equivalents
> debugfs: move to new usr_strtobool
> params.c: Use new usr_strtobool function to process boolean inputs
> fs/debugfs/file.c | 20 ++++++--------------
> include/linux/string.h | 1 +
> kernel/params.c | 14 ++++----------
> lib/string.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at