[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150506150140.GB12986@mwanda>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 18:01:40 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] string: provide strscpy() and strscpy_truncate()
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:01:16PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> +ssize_t strscpy(char *dest, const char *src, size_t count)
> +{
> + ssize_t res = strscpy_truncate(dest, src, count);
> + if (res < 0 && count != 0)
> + dest[0] = '\0';
How is this better than returning a truncated string? Is it just
because the caller was naughty so we give them a spanking?
> + return res;
> +}
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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