[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20060901144423.aa306d36.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:44:23 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: Generic infrastructure for acls
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:14:22 +0200
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de> wrote:
> +generic_acl_list(struct inode *inode, struct generic_acl_operations *ops,
> + int type, char *list, size_t list_size)
> +{
> + struct posix_acl *acl;
> + const char *name;
> + size_t size;
> +
> + acl = ops->getacl(inode, type);
> + if (!acl)
> + return 0;
> + posix_acl_release(acl);
> +
> + switch(type) {
> + case ACL_TYPE_ACCESS:
> + name = POSIX_ACL_XATTR_ACCESS;
> + break;
> +
> + case ACL_TYPE_DEFAULT:
> + name = POSIX_ACL_XATTR_DEFAULT;
> + break;
> +
> + default:
> + return 0;
> + }
> + size = strlen(name) + 1;
> + if (list && size <= list_size)
> + memcpy(list, name, size);
> + return size;
> +}
That's a clumsy-looking interface. How is the caller to know that *list
got filled in? By checking the generic_acl_list() return value against
`list_size'?
If so, shouldn't this be covered in the API description (when you write
it ;))?
Or should it be returning some error code in this case?
Or should we just strdup() the thing?
Or return `name' and let the caller worry about it?
--
VGER BF report: H 1.83187e-15
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists