Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:13:42 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: objections to sbuf? Message-ID: <200012131913.eBDJDgK85146@earth.backplane.com> References: <35886.976734714@critter>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
:
: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
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012131913.eBDJDgK85146>