From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 18:48:11 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C88A1065674; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:48:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710AB8FC0A; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:48:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [96.47.65.170]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27C5A46B2E; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:48:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8E24B95C; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:48:10 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Andriy Gapon Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:48:10 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p10; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201201150709.q0F79Iif067938@svn.freebsd.org> <4F15AFE2.8000600@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4F15AFE2.8000600@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201201171348.10192.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:48:10 -0500 (EST) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Eitan Adler , Colin Percival Subject: Re: svn commit: r230125 - head/sys/kern X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:48:11 -0000 On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:29:06 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 17/01/2012 19:12 Eitan Adler said the following: > > To me seeing "(null)" from the output of printf indicates "There is a > > bug here, printf should never be given a NULL argument.". > > However, given that it isn't undefined here, and the objections I've > > received I will revert this part of the change when I get home. > > Would this be worth the hassle now that the change is already committed? Probably not, though at some point if the printf is reworked for some other reason it could be removed then. I don't think we need to add more special case handling for NULL string pointers passed to kernel printf in the future, however. -- John Baldwin