Pete Zaitcev wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:28:23 +0300, Michael Tokarev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have sizeof(), don't we? Ie, why
snprintf(hid->name, 128, "%s", buf);
instead of
snprintf(hid->name, sizeof(hid->name), "%s", buf);
I always fight this sort of patches, because the moment hid->name becomes
a pointer (and it's almost inevitable for most structures), this scheme
breaks down. The right approach is to have a symbolic constant HID_NAME_SIZE
or such.
If it will become a pointer, all those snprintfs should be changed into
something like asprintf() (there's no such interface in kernel but mentioning
that routine is sufficient to get the "idea") -- if the buffer isn't
static, direct snprintf() is not appropriate in most cases, you have
to "realloc" it when changing the content. Unless, ofcourse, you'll
use something like
hid->name = kmalloc(HID_NAME_SIZE);
which makes no real difference for static buffer vs a pointer -- ie,
there's no reason to convert static buffer into a pointer to static-size
storage.
/mjt
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
_______________________________________________
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
