lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: filldir[64] oddness
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 08:41:08PM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> Yeah, IMHO it's not really worth optimizing for the obscure and oddly-
> defined cases unless you can actually find valid places where that
> code comes up understandably. In this particular case, the Coverity
> checker is indirectly pointing out that the code is confusing to the
> reader and could inadvertently be massively broken by changing the
> type of d_name.

Bullshit. It is very directly pointing out that it has broken handling
of C types (obscure case, my arse - decay of arrays to pointers), has no
regression testsuite and most likely doesn't even get applied to its own
source on a regular basis.
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-10 02:47    [W:0.814 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site