Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:59:03 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: objections to sbuf? Message-ID: <35719.976733943@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:42:11 PST." <200012131842.eBDIgB984584@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200012131842.eBDIgB984584@earth.backplane.com>, Matt Dillon writes: > I won't object to you comitting it, but I think it's a huge waste > of effort and space, not to mention introducing yet another MALLOC > allocation which can potentially deadlock the system at a critical > juncture. The kernel just doesn't have any sort of serious > string handling problem that using snprintf() and strlcpy() couldn't > fix in a second. Considering mailing list archives content, I think the "... fix in a second" is subject to some debate... A good API saves many programming and debugging hours. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35719.976733943>