From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] replace snprintf with strlcpy without
	adding extra include
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 20:05:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4698261.tayNczNUhG@xps>
References: <20190403144505.46234-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com>
 <20190403085132.1fa33194@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
 <20190403155638.GA1336@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DCB1B44E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  4 Apr 2019 20:05:09 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20190403155638.GA1336@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
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>

03/04/2019 17:56, Bruce Richardson:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 08:51:32AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Wed,  3 Apr 2019 15:45:04 +0100
> > Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.c b/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.c
> > > index d215acecc..a542f6f5d 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.c
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_ring/rte_ring.c
> > > @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ rte_ring_init(struct rte_ring *r, const char *name, unsigned count,
> > >  
> > >  	/* init the ring structure */
> > >  	memset(r, 0, sizeof(*r));
> > > -	ret = snprintf(r->name, sizeof(r->name), "%s", name);
> > > +	ret = strlcpy(r->name, name, sizeof(r->name));
> > >  	if (ret < 0 || ret >= (int)sizeof(r->name))
> > 
> > I would rather use the name length that is part of the header file.
> > 
> > 	if (strnlen(name, RTE_RING_NAMESIZE) == RTE_RING_NAMESIZE)
> > 		return -ENAMETOOLONG;
> > 
> > 	strlcpy(r->name, name, sizeof(r->name))
> >
> Yes, though honestly it's a matter of preference. Since this was a scripted
> replacement each change wasn't checked in too much detail other than a
> cursory check for correctness.

I prefer using sizeof/strlen rather than the constant used for allocation.
Reasons are:
	- it's easier to understand the intent
	- it's easier to change how the allocation size is chosen