Hi Andries, On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:28:01 +0200, Andries E. Brouwer wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 01:30:04PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Subject: partitions: Prefer strlcpy() over snprintf() > > > > strlcpy is faster than snprintf when you don't use the returned value. > > > if (!part) > > - snprintf(buf, BDEVNAME_SIZE, "%s", hd->disk_name); > > + strlcpy(buf, hd->disk_name, BDEVNAME_SIZE); > > else if (isdigit(hd->disk_name[strlen(hd->disk_name)-1])) > > snprintf(buf, BDEVNAME_SIZE, "%sp%d", hd->disk_name, part); > > else > > Yecch. There is a parallelism between the two cases > which makes the source nice and readable. > You want to destroy the parallelism for no gain. > Different functions, different parameter order. Ach. At the moment I hit "Send" I thought about that and suspected that someone would object for that reason. And that makes sense, indeed. Just scratch this patch, sorry for the noise. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
