* Nils Carlson ([email protected]) wrote:
> Changes since v1:
> Cosmetic surgery at a european cost
>
:-)
[...]
> +static int ustcomm_get_sock_name(char *dir_name, pid_t pid, char *sock_name)
> +{
> + struct dirent *dirent;
> + char sock_path_base[101];
> + int len;
> + DIR *dir = opendir(dir_name);
> +
> + snprintf(sock_path_base, 100, "%ld.", (long) pid);
May I suggest to add
#define MAX_SOCK_PATH_BASE_LEN 100
and use
char sock_path_base[MAX_SOCK_PATH_BASE_LEN];
snprintf(sock_path_base, MAX_SOCK_PATH_BASE_LEN - 1, "%ld.", (long) pid);
?
Hardcoding fixed array width, especially when they have a close
relationship one to another, is usually frowned upon.
The rest looks good. If you proceed to this change, please add my
Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
