On 05/17/2015 09:13 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 11:15 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> On 05/14/2015 07:10 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 12:01 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
I tested the implementation with a simple user-space harness, so I
On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 11:15 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 05/14/2015 07:10 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 12:01 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> >>
> >> I tested the implementation with a simple user-space harness, so I
> >> believe it is correct for the corner cases I could
On 05/14/2015 07:10 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 12:01 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
This patch series addresses limitations in strncpy() and strlcpy();
both the old APIs are unpleasant, as Linus nicely summarized here
a couple of days ago:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/28/
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 12:01 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> This patch series addresses limitations in strncpy() and strlcpy();
> both the old APIs are unpleasant, as Linus nicely summarized here
> a couple of days ago:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/28/570
>
> and of course as other folks (Gre
Ping! There was a little feedback on the strscpy() patch series,
but I think at this point it boiled down to adding a __must_check
on strscpy(), which I've done. Any further opinions? Would
anyone like to volunteer to take this into their tree? Or Linus,
are you ready to pull it directly when
This patch series addresses limitations in strncpy() and strlcpy();
both the old APIs are unpleasant, as Linus nicely summarized here
a couple of days ago:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/28/570
and of course as other folks (Greg K-H and Linus again) said last year:
https://plus.google.com/+gre
6 matches
Mail list logo
