From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Dec 13 11:20:44 2000 From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 13 11:20:43 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (flutter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6792937B404 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:20:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBDJKdi36006; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:20:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Matt Dillon Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: objections to sbuf? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:13:42 PST." <200012131913.eBDJDgK85146@earth.backplane.com> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:20:38 +0100 Message-ID: <36004.976735238@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200012131913.eBDJDgK85146@earth.backplane.com>, Matt Dillon writes: >:> 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? We *do* intend to use it, but we don't intend to rewrite the entire kernel wholesale to use it. -- 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