Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] rework access to /proc/net/rpc

["David Härdeman" <david@hardeman.nu>]

On 2014-12-10 07:09, Timo Teras wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 16:30:52 -0500
> Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> My understanding these patches were needed to make nfs-utils
>>>> compatible with the musl c-library. That is the case, correct?
> 
> Yes. It is because musl FILE implementation uses writev() and readv()
> with multiple buffers, and the kernel side does not handle that.

I should probably note in that case that my patches to gssd include a 
call to fscanf, I'm guessing that'd be a problem for you?

> In my opinion the dynamic allocation is a step backward, rather then
> forwards. It adds potential failure (out of memory), is not required,
> and it does not add any features either.
> 
> IMHO, "just because it used to be so" is a bad excuse. And it would
> just cause additional code making harder to debug and easier to fail.
> Why add complexity when it can be done simpler?

I think PATH_MAX is a good counter-example.

But I think we can at least agree that we're discussing coding style 
now, which is a bit like discussing Emacs vs vi, and I doubt we'll ever 
reach an agreement... :)

Regards,
David