On 2014-12-10 07:09, Timo Teras wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 16:30:52 -0500
Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
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
