Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:09:48 -0800 From: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: objections to sbuf? Message-ID: <20001213110948.S2312@canonware.com> In-Reply-To: <200012131842.eBDIgB984584@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 10:42:11AM -0800 References: <xzpzoi0l3a5.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200012131842.eBDIgB984584@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 10:42:11AM -0800, Matt Dillon wrote: > :Any serious objections to committing the latest sbuf patch? > > I won't object to you comitting it, but I think it's a huge waste > of effort and space, not to mention introducing yet another MALLOC > allocation which can potentially deadlock the system at a critical > juncture. The kernel just doesn't have any sort of serious > string handling problem that using snprintf() and strlcpy() couldn't > fix in a second. I agree with Matt. Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001213110948.S2312>