Re: [PATCH net-next] wireless: test sscanf return values

On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 10:35 +, David Laight wrote: > From: Joe Perches > > At some point, it'd be good to make sscanf use __must_check > > so make sure the net/ uses of sscanf use the return value. > > Isn't it much safer to avoid sscanf() completely and use > a different function for

RE: [PATCH net-next] wireless: test sscanf return values

From: Joe Perches > At some point, it'd be good to make sscanf use __must_check > so make sure the net/ uses of sscanf use the return value. Isn't it much safer to avoid sscanf() completely and use a different function for converting numerics? David -- To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: [PATCH net-next] wireless: test sscanf return values

On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 10:35 +, David Laight wrote: From: Joe Perches At some point, it'd be good to make sscanf use __must_check so make sure the net/ uses of sscanf use the return value. Isn't it much safer to avoid sscanf() completely and use a different function for converting

RE: [PATCH net-next] wireless: test sscanf return values

From: Joe Perches At some point, it'd be good to make sscanf use __must_check so make sure the net/ uses of sscanf use the return value. Isn't it much safer to avoid sscanf() completely and use a different function for converting numerics? David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send