On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 08:41:08PM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> Yeah, IMHO it's not really worth optimizing for the obscure and oddly-
> defined cases unless you can actually find valid places where that
> code comes up understandably. In this particular case, the Coverity
> checker is indirectly pointing out that the code is confusing to the
> reader and could inadvertently be massively broken by changing the
> type of d_name.
Bullshit. It is very directly pointing out that it has broken handling
of C types (obscure case, my arse - decay of arrays to pointers), has no
regression testsuite and most likely doesn't even get applied to its own
source on a regular basis.
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
