On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 03:16:56PM +0200, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: > Hi > > I really do not want to complicate things here, both work course here. > But sptlcpy is definitely faster. But this is hardly time-critical > code, so maybe it looks better to use snprintf in both cases. > > I vote for sptlcpy, but who decides? > Someone decides and I submit another patch :-)
I vote for snprintf ;-) jirka > > Best regards > Rickard Strandqvist > > > 2014-06-05 0:31 GMT+02:00 Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com>: > > On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 12:23:55AM +0200, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> A little embarrassing, but I actually did not know that there was a > >> better replacement for strncpy. > > > > This works for perf, but not in general because standard glibc > > does not have strlcpy. snprintf works always. > > > > In practice if you could tolerate strncpy always zeroing > > the complete string before you can also tolerate snprintf. > > > > -Andi -- 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/
