From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:43:09 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] memory zeroing macros Message-Id: <20070212044309.GA27032@kroah.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:51:20AM +0000, Srdjan Todorovic wrote: > On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:34:34PM -0500, burns.ethan@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 04:32:11AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > or maybe this really is just not worth the effort. who knows? > > > > > > I don't think its worth the effort. Changing the name on this wouldn't add > > > any readability. memset(dest, 0, len) is very clear, in my opinion. Also, > > > there's nothing really error prone about it... I see no advantage. > > > > Not true at all, 0 and len get switched a lot accidentally. See the > > archives for times people have swept the kernel tree to fix this issue > > up. > > I agree with you here, Greg, about accidentally switching the args to > memset(). However just because someone (I've done this in the past, > damn hard to debug since you don't expect to make this silly mistake) > can do: > > if (x = 0) { } gcc will now warn against this :) Anyway, anyone is welcome to sweep the kernel tree to see if there are any 0 for the len argument in the tree left. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors