On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:44:23 -0800 (PST) David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:45:37 +1100 > > > I doubt we do that. Properties that contain things like ranges, or "reg" > > properties are expected to be of a size that is a multiple of > > #size-cells/#address-cells and I'm not sure that won't break things here > > or there if they suddenly get one more byte.. > > > > Or do you mean you/we are appending that-without- changing the length > > field ? > > Right, simply don't change the length field. Put the zero byte > at offset "length + 1" > > It's stupid to validate NULL termination everywhere when we > can make it an invariant in one spot. I don't mind fixing up the function to use strncmp and checking for a 0 length from of_get_property. However, I'm almost certain that other places in the code have the same issue so what you're saying here seems to make sense. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
