On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:16:16 +0100
Rasmus Villemoes 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 ambiguous in how they ha
On Thu, Jan 29 2015, Finn Thain 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 m->count + strle
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 a
On Wed, Dec 03 2014, Rasmus Villemoes 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 unleashed I had to c
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 unleashed I had to clean up an
unnecessary macro.
The patches don't change
5 matches
Mail list logo
