On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 05:53 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> The bottom line: most of these guys could as well return void; we have
> few overflow checks and those could be made explicit. As it is,
> "return -1 on overflow" had been a mistake.
What do you think of adding last_ret and last_len to
struct seq_file? Is there any case where it's racy?
I haven't noticed one, but dunno.
Another option might be to use something like:
struct seq_rtn {
int rtn;
size_t len;
}
as the return for all the seq_<foo> funcs.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
