From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: zonque@gmail.com (Daniel Mack)
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:04:14 +0100
Subject: [PATCH V2 2/8] string: fix strncmp function
In-Reply-To: <20131218160318.GQ2609@titan.lakedaemon.net>
References: <1386767259-15693-1-git-send-email-p.wilczek@samsung.com>
 <1387368551-18958-1-git-send-email-p.wilczek@samsung.com>
 <1387368551-18958-3-git-send-email-p.wilczek@samsung.com>
 <20131218121551.GH4360@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <52B193BE.1080206@gmail.com>
 <20131218160318.GQ2609@titan.lakedaemon.net>
Message-ID: <52B1C77E.6080708@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 12/18/2013 05:03 PM, Jason Cooper wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:23:26PM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> On 12/18/2013 01:15 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:09:05PM +0100, Piotr Wilczek wrote:
>>>> Now function returns the number of characters that differ in the
>>>> compared strings.
>>>
>>> I think this is a mistake.  You're defining a standard C function in
>>> a non-standard way.  For strcmp() and strncmp(), the C standard
>>> requires:
>>>
>>> RETURN VALUE
>>>        The strcmp() and strncmp() functions return an integer less than, equal
>>>        to, or greater than zero if s1 (or the first n bytes thereof) is found,
>>>        respectively, to be less than, to match, or be greater than s2.
>>>
>>> If you implement something different to that, don't call it strcmp() or
>>> strncmp() but something else, because you're not providing the correct
>>> functionality, and that will just confuse people and lead to bugs.
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> For instance, can you be sure that there aren't any uses of strncmp()
>>> which already test for less-than-zero etc?
>>
>> In this case, yes. The code as it stands is very small, and users only
>> check for the return value of these functions to be 0.
>>
>> But I wonder whether that patch is needed at all. At least the rest of
>> this series does not even seem to introduce new call sites of strcmp()
>> or strncmp() ...
> 
> Go ahead and drop this one.  I'll do a patch to fix this and remove
> those heinous parentheses.  :)

:)

Ok, I'll pick up the rest of this series then.

Thanks!
Daniel