On Wednesday 24 February 2010 07:24:00 you wrote:
> Octavian Purdila wrote:
> > Here is a new version of this patch which fixes both the comma and
> > invalid value issues, please give it a try.
> 
> Sorry, it is even worse. :(
> 
> > [net-next PATCH v5 2/3] sysctl: add proc_do_large_bitmap
> >
> > The new function can be used to read/write large bitmaps via /proc. A
> > comma separated range format is used for compact output and input
> > (e.g. 1,3-4,10-10).
> 
> Writing "50000-50100" gets EINVAL, it should be success.
> Writing "50000,50100" fails too.
> 

Hmm, they don't fail for me :-/

> Please, at least, do some basic testing.
> 

I do test them, I've attached the current test batch I was using.

Anyways, today I've noticed that "1,2 3" does not fail and even more 
importantly the final value is "3". 

Being that I don't see a way of fixing this without not acknowledging 1,2 even 
though we will do set these values, I revisited the "1 2 3" issue. And I don't 
understand why this is actually an issue, we are just being more permissive 
(i.e. we are allowing as separators both whitespaces and ,).


> Also some comments below.
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > index 5259727..d8ea839 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > @@ -2635,6 +2635,140 @@ static int proc_do_cad_pid(struct ctl_table
> > *table, int write,
> 
> The above line is wrong, it should be a part of previous line.
> 

Probably my email client corrupted the patch, sorry about that, I will be more 
careful next time.

> > +	int left = *lenp, err = 0;
> 
> 'left' should be size_t.
> 

Will fix, thanks for catching this.

I will resend the whole patch series once we get this formatting issue 
resolved.