From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751605AbeBZRJa (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:09:30 -0500 Received: from mail-qt0-f176.google.com ([209.85.216.176]:46711 "EHLO mail-qt0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751175AbeBZRJ2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:09:28 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuGnoTQPuT/0Ctz0V1iESKO8H7/ZuTsc2+AF/eDBM4yOdrsW12beA4ZFE5yxXvCpVnpLxLFQT7eM62ewyigTjQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <9ec3c54c-f8fe-22d7-783e-8cf9862405bb@robertabel.eu> <20180225235432.31209-1-rabel@robertabel.eu> <20180225235432.31209-2-rabel@robertabel.eu> <20180225235432.31209-3-rabel@robertabel.eu> <20180225235432.31209-4-rabel@robertabel.eu> From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:09:27 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] auxdisplay: charlcd: fix x/y address commands To: Miguel Ojeda Cc: Robert Abel , linux-kernel , Willy Tarreau , Geert Uytterhoeven Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Andy Shevchenko > wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Robert Abel 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 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