From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Zhang Xiliang <zhangxiliang@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add the field checking for missing value after
	opration
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:46:27 +0800
Message-ID: <489964E3.40702@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <48995CFA.5020302@cn.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <48995CFA.5020302@cn.fujitsu.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
To: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>, Linux Audit <linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com


Hello Steve,

>  	if (v == NULL || f == v)
>  		return -1;

I have some questions for "f == v".

I think it only checks the address of "f" and "v". It seems unuseful.
If we need to check whether the value is equal to the field, I think we should use strcmp().
What your opinion about it?
If you agree with me, I will make another patch for it.