[PATCH] cifs: call strtobool instead of custom implementation

[Jeff Layton]

On Mon, 12 May 2014 16:59:55 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko at linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 16:22 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:41:00AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > This changes the returned value of cifs_linux_ext_proc_write() to
> > > > -EINVAL if strtobool() was not able to find a boolean value.
> > > > Previously setting anything non-bool wouldn't cause this side-effect.
> > > > 
> > > > Steve, is it OK to you? This is certainly a visible change in that
> > > > writing to a proc entry will cause user-space error where it was
> > > > ignored before.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I think returning an error there is the right thing to do. If someone
> > > is writing to this file, they likely mean for it to have some sort of
> > > an effect.
> > > 
> > > Honestly though, the *best* thing would be to (gradually) convert these
> > > procfile switches into module options. The way it stands now, it's
> > > really hard to set these at boot time. You have to:
> > > 
> > >     # modprobe cifs
> > >     # echo N > /proc/fs/cifs/LinuxExtensionsEnabled
> > >     # mount -t cifs ...
> > > 
> > > Making sure that gets done for anything in /etc/fstab is...tricky.
> > > 
> > > What would be best is to add module options that affect these
> > > variables that could be set via /etc/modprobe.d.
> > > 
> > > Then, either add a warning printk when someone writes to these files
> > > that they'll soon be deprecated (in 2-3 releases), or maybe turn them
> > > into symlinks that point to the files under /sys/module/cifs/parameters.
> > I agree.
> > 
> > I think strtobool() patches are fine (+ change to the commit message).
> 
> I will resend v2 soon. Could I add your Acked-by or Reviewed-by?
> 

Sure, you can add mine...

> > The change to module options should certainly be done in a separate
> > patchset.
> > 
> 
> 

Agreed.

-- Jeff