Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Wednesday 2008-04-09 15:21, Patrick McHardy wrote:
The decoupling of netfilter supported protocols from AF values
makes sense.
However I think _MAX definitions actually having the value MAX + 1
is pretty poor style. When you see an array dimensioned as
[XYZ_MAX] you always have to check whether it is really the maximum
(and thus a bug) or maximum + 1. So I'd prefer to have MAX really
be the maximum and use max + 1 for arrays etc.
In this case, I'd just follow AF_ suit.
Especially since NAME_MAX=256, PATH_MAX=4096 for example,
Thats a bad example.
_MAX is more often the total size rather than the last element.
(The more even since loops use for (; x < MAX; )
rather than for (; x<= MAX;) as can probably be seen
in a lot of userspace code.)
Which is in my opinion a sign of poor coding and leads to
off-by-ones. Please don't redefine the meaning of maximum.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
