On 2021-05-21 12:55 p.m., Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 5/21/21 5:55 PM, Mark Pearson wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> I know it would make Dell and Lenovo operate differently (I can add >>>> that detail to the documentation) but it just feels like a nicer >>>> design. >>> >>> That works for me. Perhaps you can also do a (compile tested only) >>> RFC patch for the Dell code to do the same thing (replace the memset >>> 0 with the strscpy) to see if the Dell folks are ok with also doing >>> things this way ? >>> >> I'm not hugely comfortable with that. If for some reason it broke things >> for Dell customers I wouldn't want to be responsible :) > > Right, that is why I suggested making it a RFC patch and I would > certainly not apply that patch without it being tested by Dell first. > > The idea behind the patch is for it to be a way to get a discussion > about this started. In my experience patches tend to get more of > a reaction then hypothetical discussions about changes :) > >> I'd rather they >> made the changes and were able to test it - I know that's what I'd >> prefer if it was the other way around. Apologies if I'm being over cautious! > > If you don't feel comfortable doing this, that is fine, lets wait what > the Dell folks have to say; and if they don't respond I might do a RFC > myself. > Ah - I'd misunderstood that point. I have no issues with that :) I won't update the document and publish a RFC instead as the last patch in the series Mark
