[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <525F3830.2060001@asianux.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:06:56 +0800
From: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: josh@...edesktop.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/rcutorture.c: use scnprintf() instead of sprintf()
On 10/16/2013 10:07 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 10/15/2013 10:47 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:32:41PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> >> Yeah, that is a way for it. It seems you (related maintainer) like
>>> >> additional fix for it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Hmm... I will try within this week (although I don't think it is quite
>>> >> necessary to me).
>>> >>
>>> >> :-)
>> >
>> > If you always ensure that the buffer is big enough, do you really need
>> > the checking?
>> >
> Since they are all normal static functions: Of cause not need length
> checking, either don't need return value, either don't need local
> variable 'cnt'.
>
2 information:
- this way (base on nr_cpu_ids, not snprintf) is not extensible.
when add new printing contents, need modify maximized length.
if acceptable to you, I will go (or do you have any new ideas?).
- sorry, I have some internal urgent things to do, so may not finish
within this week, and I will finish it in this month (2013-10-31).
Thanks.
--
Chen Gang
--
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