On Thu, Jan 29 2015, Finn Thain fth...@telegraphics.com.au wrote:
I have one reservation about this patch series.
For example, the changes,
- seq_printf(m, %s, p);
+ seq_puts(m, p);
These calls are not equivalent because the bounds check is not the same.
seq_puts will fail when
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:16:16 +0100
Rasmus Villemoes li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk wrote:
Steven, you've been doing some cleanup in this area, among other things
trying to make all the seq_* functions return void. Could you fill me in
on the status of that?
Yes, the entire seq_*() operations are
I have one reservation about this patch series.
For example, the changes,
- seq_printf(m, %s, p);
+ seq_puts(m, p);
These calls are not equivalent because the bounds check is not the same.
seq_puts will fail when m-count + strlen(p) == m-size.
seq_write() does the same check as
On Wed, Dec 03 2014, Rasmus Villemoes li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk wrote:
These patches mostly replace seq_printf with simpler and faster
equivalents, e.g. seq_printf(m, something) = seq_puts(m,
something) and seq_printf(m, \n) = seq_putc(m, '\n). But before
my Coccinelle scripts could be
4 matches
Mail list logo
