Justin Stitt <justinst...@google.com> writes: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 2:19 PM Justin Stitt <justinst...@google.com> wrote: >> >> Within this RFC-series I want to get some comments on two ideas that I >> have for refactoring the current `strncpy` usage in repository.c. >> >> When looking at `make_first_field` we see a u64 is being used to store >> up to 8 bytes from a literal string. This is slightly suspect to me but >> it works? In regards to `strncpy` here, it makes the code needlessly >> complex imo. >> >> Please see my two ideas to change this and let me know if any other >> approaches are more reasonable. >> >> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/90 >> Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt <justinst...@google.com> >> --- >> Justin Stitt (3): >> [RFC] powerpc/ps3: refactor strncpy usage attempt 1 >> [RFC] powerpc/ps3: refactor strncpy usage attempt 2 >> [RFC] powerpc/ps3: refactor strncpy usage attempt 2.5 > Errhm, It looks like the diffs after attempt 1 came out poorly and > probably won't apply cleanly because they were inter-diffed with the > first patch. Is there a way to let b4 know I wanted each patch diff'd > against the same SHA and not each other sequentially?
I don't think there is. It always assumes they're a series. cheers