On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 20:22, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > +
> > +extern int suspend_snprintf(char * buffer, int buffer_size, const char *fmt, ...);
>
> What's wrong with regular snprintf?
Nigel Cunningham writes:
If there's a buffer overrun, it returns the number of bytes it wanted to
use, not the number actually used.
But on buffer overrun, you know it wrote size-1 characters. I am unconvinced
you need a special snprintf() for suspend. Are there other potential users?
If not, please consider dropping suspend_snprintf completelely.
Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |