On Thu 2014-11-06 14:24:02, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:31:07 +0100 > Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > I like the idea of having the exception only in the bitmap code and filling > > the whole buffer in other cases. > > > > I am now in doubts about the overflow state. A solution would > > be to add an "overflow" flag to struct seq_bug. I agree that it > > is ugly but it looks more secure then "len = size + 1". > > > > Well, I do not have that strong opinion about it. What do you think? > > Ideally, I want struct seq_buf defined only within seq_buf.c, and all > users must access the buffer via function methods. > > We would need to remove all the inline calls, which will have a small > affect on performance. But most seq_buf code is for output of text, > where this overhead would be a nit to the total cost of operations. > > That would get rid of all users that think it's safe to access > s->buffer + s->len.
Sounds like a good plan. Best Regards, Petr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
