netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: skbuff: use _RET_IP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 30 May 2013 13:08:10 +0200
From:	Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: skbuff: use _RET_IP_

Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com> writes:

>     Why not "text:%#lx" as already used in this string? It's
> equivalent to "0x%lx".

Well, I don't know the reasoning in this case, but I'd like to note that
those are not strictly equivalent.  Personally I find the formatting of 0
annoying enough to avoid %#x for any value which may be 0.  It's
especially bad if you try to line up things by adding leading zeros.

I would expect these to produce the same result, but they don't:

	printf("0x%02hhx\n", 0);
	printf("%#04hhx\n", 0);

Ending up with a 4 digit output when you expect 2 is very confusing.  It
doesn't matter that 0 is 0 in any case.  Why doesn't the same happen to
1 then?  This is just inconsistent behaviour, and I see no valid excuse
for it.

IMHO the single format character saved isn't worth this at all.  I'll
continue using 0x%x

Bjørn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html