Re: [PATCH] params: Fix an overflow in param_attr_show

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> wrote:

> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(byte,	unsigned char,		"%hhu\n",	kstrtou8);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(short,	short,			"%hi\n",	kstrtos16);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ushort,	unsigned short,		"%hu\n",	kstrtou16);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(int,	int,			"%i\n",		kstrtoint);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(uint,	unsigned int,		"%u\n",		kstrtouint);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(long,	long,			"%li\n",	kstrtol);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ulong,	unsigned long,		"%lu\n",	kstrtoul);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ullong,	unsigned long long,	"%llu\n",	kstrtoull);
> 
> Sure it is possible to add a new parameter type. But why would the
> person adding it forget the \n?

Because they are human? I certainly forgot similar details when writing code, 
numerous times, and making constructs more robust against mistakes is half of
my job as a maintainer. This is kernel design 101.

> I can't imagine that someone adding a
> new type would type the new line of code character by character. Such an
> operation is calling for copy, paste and edit, at which point there is
> no reason why the \n would be actively deleted. Or this is sabotage,
> really ;-)

WTF? Really, I've given you useful feedback in the last couple of days, and my 
suggestions were generally correct and on topic, still your replies were 
passive-aggressive, obtuse and generally foul tempered in every single case.

Just the latest example:

> Aligning parameters vertically as you suggest above is probably a good
> idea for overall readability anyway, so I can change my patch to do
> that, as I am modifying these lines anyway. It is pretty much
> independent from the fix per se, but if it makes you happy...

I made a routine, technically valid suggestion that I made countless other
kernel developers in the past who sent me code with such a pattern, and
I do not appreciate your condescending tone, it's not about 'making me happy'.

You need to handle criticism of your patches properly and constructively.

Thanks,

	Ingo