Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:41:12 -0800 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: seperator error in __mask_snprintf_len |
| |
A couple of questions on your proposed patch for __mask_snprintf_len() in lib/mask.c:
1) Why make the MASK_CHUNKSZ a possible (compile time) variable? I can think of a couple good reasons why not to: a] So long as we have the current format, in which each word is _not_ zero filled, then the chunk size needs to be a well known constant, or else the output is ambiguous. For example, an output of "1,0" is ambiguous unless we know a priori that the "0" stands for exactly 32, say, bits. b] Even if we change to a zero filled format, better to just always use the same chunk size, as that is one less detail to confuse user level code. I don't see any reason offhand for needing code that works with more than one chunk size. 2) Why the trailing "buf[len++] = 0"? Won't the last snprintf do as much? 3) This code has quite a bit more detail of bit shifts, masks and arithmetic than before. Perhaps some is necessary to fix the word order bug I had, perhaps some is only needed to allow for the chunk size to vary. I'll take a shot at seeing if I can find a less detail-rich expression of this that still gets the word order correct.
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |