From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Wilck Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] libmultipath: get_udev_uid: make sure pp->wwid is 0-terminated Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 23:21:20 +0200 Message-ID: <1500067280.4808.27.camel@suse.de> References: <20170714113209.17177-1-mwilck@suse.com> <20170714113209.17177-2-mwilck@suse.com> <1500044188.2662.4.camel@wdc.com> <1500060099.4808.21.camel@suse.de> <1500063703.2662.9.camel@wdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1500063703.2662.9.camel@wdc.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Bart Van Assche , "bmarzins@redhat.com" , "tang.junhui@zte.com.cn" , "hare@suse.de" , "christophe.varoqui@opensvc.com" , "guanjunxiong@huawei.com" Cc: "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "xose.vazquez@gmail.com" , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 20:21 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 21:21 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > > Let's have a strncpy vs. strlcpy discussion :D ! > > > > I can do this if you insist, but I don't see a big benefit. We've > > tested with the patch I submitted. > > My comments were not intended as an invitation to open a strncpy() > vs. strlcpy() > discussion. What I wanted to illustrate with the above patch is that > when using > strlcpy() it is not necessary to explicitly zero-terminate a string > because > strlcpy() guarantees zero-termination. Compact code that is as > readable as more > verbose code is always better because compact code is easier to > verify. OK. I'll wait for comments on the other patches, and change v2 of this patch to your version. Martin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mwilck@suse.de (Martin Wilck) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 23:21:20 +0200 Subject: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/4] libmultipath: get_udev_uid: make sure pp->wwid is 0-terminated In-Reply-To: <1500063703.2662.9.camel@wdc.com> References: <20170714113209.17177-1-mwilck@suse.com> <20170714113209.17177-2-mwilck@suse.com> <1500044188.2662.4.camel@wdc.com> <1500060099.4808.21.camel@suse.de> <1500063703.2662.9.camel@wdc.com> Message-ID: <1500067280.4808.27.camel@suse.de> On Fri, 2017-07-14@20:21 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Fri, 2017-07-14@21:21 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > > Let's have a strncpy vs. strlcpy discussion :D ! > > > > I can do this if you insist, but I don't see a big benefit. We've > > tested with the patch I submitted. > > My comments were not intended as an invitation to open a strncpy() > vs. strlcpy() > discussion. What I wanted to illustrate with the above patch is that > when using > strlcpy() it is not necessary to explicitly zero-terminate a string > because > strlcpy() guarantees zero-termination. Compact code that is as > readable as more > verbose code is always better because compact code is easier to > verify. OK. I'll wait for comments on the other patches, and change v2 of this patch to your version. Martin