[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1379136360.1973.10.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:26:00 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
keescook@...omium.org, linux@...izon.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
davem@...emloft.net, eldad@...refinery.com, jbeulich@...e.com,
jkosina@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rdunlap@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: drop comment claiming %n is ignored
On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 05:53 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> The bottom line: most of these guys could as well return void; we have
> few overflow checks and those could be made explicit. As it is,
> "return -1 on overflow" had been a mistake.
What do you think of adding last_ret and last_len to
struct seq_file? Is there any case where it's racy?
I haven't noticed one, but dunno.
Another option might be to use something like:
struct seq_rtn {
int rtn;
size_t len;
}
as the return for all the seq_<foo> funcs.
--
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