From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 19:07:39 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3041F1065675; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:07:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFB914D9B9; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:07:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F15C6F5.6000809@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:07:33 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <201201150709.q0F79Iif067938@svn.freebsd.org> <4F15AFE2.8000600@FreeBSD.org> <201201171348.10192.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201201171348.10192.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, Eitan Adler , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon , Colin Percival , svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r230125 - head/sys/kern X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:07:39 -0000 On 01/17/2012 10:48, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:29:06 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 17/01/2012 19:12 Eitan Adler said the following: >>> To me seeing "(null)" from the output of printf indicates "There is a >>> bug here, printf should never be given a NULL argument.". >>> However, given that it isn't undefined here, and the objections I've >>> received I will revert this part of the change when I get home. >> >> Would this be worth the hassle now that the change is already committed? > > Probably not, though at some point if the printf is reworked for some other > reason it could be removed then. I don't think we need to add more special > case handling for NULL string pointers passed to kernel printf in the future, > however. If it needs to be changed, it should be done sooner than later. It's not as if we're carving the bits out of stone after all. :) -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/