bcopy()

• Next message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))"
• Previous message: Bernd Petrovitsch: "Re: Sleep"
• Next in thread: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: bcopy()"
• Reply: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: bcopy()"
• Reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: bcopy()"
• Maybe reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: bcopy()"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi Linus,

The implementation of bcopy() in lib/string.c (and some other places such as
the XFS header files) is incorrect as it implements bcopy as memcpy. This is
wrong: bcopy should be the equivalent of memmove (which handles overlapping
areas correctly).

I've dicussed it with a number of people, and the general consensus seems to
be that it should be nuked entirely? Do you agree?

David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))"
• Previous message: Bernd Petrovitsch: "Re: Sleep"
• Next in thread: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: bcopy()"
• Reply: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: bcopy()"
• Reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: bcopy()"
• Maybe reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: bcopy()"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:58 EST