Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:44:57 +0000 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |