From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Dec 13 11:10: 6 2000 From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 13 11:10:02 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from magnesium.net (toxic.magnesium.net [207.154.84.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 252B237B402 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:10:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 62475 invoked by uid 1142); 13 Dec 2000 19:09:59 -0000 Date: 13 Dec 2000 11:09:59 -0800 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:09:48 -0800 From: Jason Evans To: Matt Dillon Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: objections to sbuf? Message-ID: <20001213110948.S2312@canonware.com> References: <200012131842.eBDIgB984584@earth.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200012131842.eBDIgB984584@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 10:42:11AM -0800 Sender: jasone@magnesium.net Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 10:42:11AM -0800, Matt Dillon wrote: > :Any serious objections to committing the latest sbuf patch? > > 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. I agree with Matt. Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message