On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 11:08:39AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >On 12/09/2014 09:01 AM, David Härdeman wrote: >> On 2014-12-09 09:42, Timo Teras wrote: >>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:16:59 +0100 >>> David Härdeman <david@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> At least the readline() function could be implemented using >>>> read/write (instead of fread/fwrite) and a dynamic buffer...no? >>> >>> It's extra complexity. I'd rather not add it unless it's required. My >>> understanding about the communication mechanism with kernel is that >>> it's not required. Why have code that would never be used? >> >> I agree that it depends on your view. I tend to be very sceptical of arbitrary >> limitations unless they have a very good reason (like measurable and relevant >> performance impact), I doubt that's the case here. >Your skeptical-ability of arbitrary limitations has become very clear in >the last few hours... ;-) I guess I'm indifferent about it... From reading >your gssd patch set, it is a bit more artful not to use fixed size buffers >but again, I'm indifferent... That said... if patches appear removing these >fixed buffers they definitely would be considered... > >> >> It's up to the maintainer though, I just wanted to point it out :) >My understanding these patches were needed to make nfs-utils compatible with the musl c-library. >That is the case, correct? The fread/fwrite removal seems reasonable, yes. The removal of the readline() function though (which could be implemented using normal read/malloc/realloc) seems less so.....IMHO. -- David Härdeman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
