linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] auxdisplay: charlcd: fix x/y address commands

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:09:27 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Robert Abel <rabel@...ertabel.eu>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] auxdisplay: charlcd: fix x/y address commands

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Robert Abel <rabel@...ertabel.eu> wrote:

>>> +                       if ('x' == cmd) {
>>> +                               if (kstrtoul(esc, 10, &tmp_addr.x) < 0)
>>>                                         break;
>>
>>> +                       } else if ('y' == cmd) {
>>> +                               if (kstrtoul(esc, 10, &tmp_addr.y) < 0)
>>>                                         break;
>>
>> Perhaps instead of dancing around kstrtox() better to switch to
>> simple_strtoul() ?
>
> It seems deprecated:
>
> /* Obsolete, do not use.  Use kstrto<foo> instead */
> extern unsigned long simple_strtoul(const char *,char **,unsigned int);

It has been discussed several times. The comment is simple wrong.

Because of the requirement of kstrtox() to have a \0 or \n followed by
\0 as "end of field".
simple_strto*() is suitable to be run in place.

>>>         }
>>> +       }
>>
>> Same indentation level or my mailer hides this from me?
>
> It is the same, but it is also how the other 'case's do it -- which in
> this case looks just wrong since it is the last one of the switch. I
> am not sure what is the preferred way of doing these kind of blocks,
> coding-style.rst does not seem to give an example for this case.

Comes to my mind
- using }}
- putting default in between
- ... ?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko