Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:38:59 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: [BUG] Suspected bug in getpeername and getsockname | From | "David S. Miller" <> |
| |
From: "Balbir Singh" <balbir_soni@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:35:59 -0800
>From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> >Optimizing error cases never bears any fruit.
In this case, I certainly think it does. Could u give a case as to why doing this would be harmful? I think the only issue can be maintainability and doing the change cleanly. But I think u are a good maintainer and will accept the changes only if they are properly fixed. Right :-)
If I give up the maintainability (ie. make the code more error prone due to duplication) I better be getting something back.
Can the user eat up more than a scheduling quantum because of the work done by ->getname()? I certainly don't think you can prove this.
Since the user can't, there is no real gain from the change, only negative maintainability aspects. (and perhaps that it would make you happy)
It certainly isn't work the long discussion we're having about it, that is for sure.
You want this to make your broken getname() protocol semantics work and I'd like you to address that instead. I get the feeling that you've designed this weird behavior and that it is not specified in any standard anyways that your protocol must behave in this way. I suggest you change it to work without the user length being available.
Franks a lot, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |