Re: [PATCH] params: Fix an overflow in param_attr_show

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:02:23 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:31:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > At minimum I'd suggest aligning the definitions vertically, to make sure
> > > any missing \n stands out more, visually:
> > > 
> > > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(byte,	unsigned char,		"%hhu\n",	kstrtou8);
> > > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(short,	short,			"%hi\n",	kstrtos16);
> > > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ushort,	unsigned short,		"%hu\n",	kstrtou16);
> > > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(int,	int,			"%i\n",		kstrtoint);
> > > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(uint,	unsigned int,		"%u\n",		kstrtouint);
> > > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(long,	long,			"%li\n",	kstrtol);
> > > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ulong,	unsigned long,		"%lu\n",	kstrtoul);
> > > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ullong,	unsigned long long,	"%llu\n",	kstrtoull);  
> > 
> > Sure it is possible to add a new parameter type. But why would the
> > person adding it forget the \n? I can't imagine that someone adding a
> > new type would type the new line of code character by character. Such an
> > operation is calling for copy, paste and edit, at which point there is
> > no reason why the \n would be actively deleted. Or this is sabotage,
> > really ;-)
> > 
> > Aligning parameters vertically as you suggest above is probably a good
> > idea for overall readability anyway, so I can change my patch to do
> > that, as I am modifying these lines anyway. It is pretty much
> > independent from the fix per se, but if it makes you happy...
> 
> Or... I could append the \n inside the STANDARD_PARAM_DEF macro, so the
> calls are unchanged. Makes my patch smaller, and addresses your concern
> just as well, I suppose.

Yeah, that would be even better:

  Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>

Note that the vertical alignment makes things easier to read regardless of the \n.

Thanks,

	Ingo