From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] alloc_ref(): allow for trailing NUL Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:08:54 -0700 Message-ID: <7v641upsqx.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vhclfqisq.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Daniel Barkalow , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Sep 28 20:09:18 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IbKGz-00049w-VB for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:09:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753467AbXI1SJB (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:09:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752226AbXI1SJB (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:09:01 -0400 Received: from rune.pobox.com ([208.210.124.79]:58788 "EHLO rune.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751797AbXI1SJB (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:09:01 -0400 Received: from rune (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44C913DA0E; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:09:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C25213D9EC; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:09:18 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:11:47 +0100 (BST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >> > Further, I am quite sure that the same mistake will happen again, until we >> > change the function to get the name length, not the number of bytes to >> > allocate. >> >> I agree. But leaving the majority of cases using the old convention is >> just confusing. > > Yeah, sorry, that patch was only half-cooked. > > If people agree with me, I'll redo the patch (fixing all calling sites, > too). I think that is probably a better solution.