From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: support strlcat function
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:55:55 +0000
Message-ID: <262b52ab-159f-fa08-ef71-f565264d1b8e@intel.com>
References: <20190116124836.40132-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
 <ae629d39-d60a-9446-0e70-c5cd077fcb8a@intel.com>
 <20190117110022.GB289580@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3134CDE3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:55:57 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <20190117110022.GB289580@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 17-Jan-19 11:00 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:39:02AM +0000, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
>> On 16-Jan-19 12:48 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> Add the strlcat function to DPDK to exist alongside the strlcpy one.
>>> While strncat is generally safe for use for concatenation, the API for
>>> the strlcat function is perhaps a little nicer to use, and supports
>>> truncation detection.
>>>
>>> See commit: 5364de644a4b ("eal: support strlcpy function") for more
>>> details on the function selection logic, since we only should be using
>>> the DPDK-provided version when no system-provided version is present.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> ---
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>>    static int test_string_fns(void) { if (test_rte_strsplit() < 0)
>>>    return -1; +	if (test_rte_strlcat() < 0) +		return -1;
>>>    return 0; }
>>>
>>
>> Unrelated, but do we also need to test strlcpy, strscpy and other
>> functions that were introduced?
>>
> 
> Yes, I think that would be advisable. I imagine the easiest way to test
> them is to do as I have here in running comparisons with a range of inputs,
> especially boundary conditions, against a known-good version for platforms
> that have the functions built-in.
> As always, volunteers and patches welcome... :-)

/action hides

> 
> /Bruce
> 


-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly