Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: drop comment claiming %n is ignored

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 05:53 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> The bottom line: most of these guys could as well return void; we have
> few overflow checks and those could be made explicit.  As it is,
> "return -1 on overflow" had been a mistake.

What do you think of adding last_ret and last_len to
struct seq_file?  Is there any case where it's racy?

I haven't noticed one, but dunno.

Another option might be to use something like:

struct seq_rtn {
	int rtn;
	size_t len;
}

as the return for all the seq_<foo> funcs.


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