Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 15:09:14 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@freebsd.org> Cc: cem@freebsd.org, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r361209 - head/sys/netinet Message-ID: <90bc5fc67941a0b3ad8235351cfc303dc3a37c40.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <58B8E5E9-8DA1-4453-B1A3-A90D97D5FD43@freebsd.org> References: <202005181007.04IA713t089936@repo.freebsd.org> <CAG6CVpWA1gKLzacDeAFOGTKJcNrg608k5yu8CJg48_WFS0omnA@mail.gmail.com> <E8554788-B6CD-44A9-8ABF-7F3CD129F87F@freebsd.org> <CAG6CVpU3QpCr9WVsuc1eRJrEV3XuQEWGHRCZ9FHMmRmB2N67Mg@mail.gmail.com> <064C2DCD-6279-4442-A900-0ECCD50CC4FA@freebsd.org> <CAG6CVpVrJE7hnEeGxzeBMUEWsi_N2EtGXdH8ZbZbEQ0GtnDovw@mail.gmail.com> <ED7C6ECA-23E4-43D9-B08D-2A39027FC210@freebsd.org> <124078163fc75e82a0acaff85f57859d012c6d98.camel@freebsd.org> <58B8E5E9-8DA1-4453-B1A3-A90D97D5FD43@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 23:01 +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > On 18. May 2020, at 22:48, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 22:43 +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > > > Sure. You can certainly ignore user reports corresponding to > > > > bogus > > > > flags, though, and encourage use of various flags. > > > > > > I could, but decided to improve the situation for some people, > > > but > > > wasn't realising that I made it worse for others. Sorry about > > > that. > > > > I'm trying to figure out why your original commit was a problem. I > > understand why it was questioned, but once the answer came out, > > it's > > clear that the code you originally committed does what it's > > supposed to > > without any harmful side effects. Sure, freebsd doesn't strictly > > need > > I guess the point Conrad is making, that on FreeBSD the check is not > needed, since the call can not fail. So the FreeBSD code base would > not > be consistent: within the SCTP related code the return code is > checked, > in the other code it is not. > > it, but the code is shared among projects, so what's the harm in > > the > > extra check that helps other projects sharing the code? It's > > certainly > > a lot less confusion and code clutter than any of the "remedies" > > that > > have been discussed. > > Yepp, sharing code between platforms makes things harder. Running the > same > code in kernel land and userland does not make it simpler. Different > groups > have different opinions/styles/... > > I'll revert the commit tomorrow and a variadic macros > SCTP_SNPRINTF(), which > will map on FreeBSD to snprintf() and on the other platforms will do > the check. > > If the build problem comes up on FreeBSD userland (and I have no idea > if that > is the case, since I don't know how Firefox / Chrome are build on > FreeBSD), > I leave it up to the port maintainer of the application to deal with > it. > > Best regards > Michael > > > > -- Ian > > > > Well it seems to me you're being asked to do a lot of extra work that has the final result of making the code LESS clear and MORE complex, because of one person's opinion. I'm actually a bit tempted to complain about the change, because to me it reduces rather than improves code quality. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?90bc5fc67941a0b3ad8235351cfc303dc3a37c40.camel>