On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:10:50PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:
> > That being said, why don't you just use LARGE_PACKET_MAX here? It is
> > already the accepted size for feeding to packet_read(), and we know it
> > has enough space to hold a NUL terminator. Yes, we may over-allocate by
> > 4 bytes, but that isn't really relevant. Strbufs over-allocate anyway.
> TBH in that case I would prefer the "PKTLINE_DATA_MAXLEN+1" solution with
> an additional comment explaining "+1".
> Would that be OK for you?
> I am not worried about the extra 4 bytes. I am worried that we make it harder
> to see what is going on if we use LARGE_PACKET_MAX.
I guess I don't feel to strongly either way. My interest in
LARGE_PACKET_MAX is mostly that this is how all the rest of the
packet_read() callers behave.