From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Dec 13 11:15:50 2000 From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 13 11:15:48 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (placeholder-dcat-1076843399.broadbandoffice.net [64.47.83.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C379B37B400 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:15:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id eBDJDgK85146; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:13:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:13:42 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200012131913.eBDJDgK85146@earth.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: objections to sbuf? References: <35886.976734714@critter> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : :In message <200012131902.eBDJ2Vx84987@earth.backplane.com>, Matt Dillon writes: :>: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 :> :> I grepped through and looked at every sprintf, strcpy, and strcat :> in the kernel. It is *NOT* a big deal. It is certainly a hellofalot :> less work to convert those to snprintf/strlcpy/etc then to convert :> them to sbuf. : :I don't recall anybody mentioning much less suggesting a wholesale :rewrite of every string operation in the kernel... : :-- :Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 What's the point of creating a new interface in the kernel for string handling if you don't intend to use it? -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message