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 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel