From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932070AbWBRQks (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:40:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932071AbWBRQks (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:40:48 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:38550 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932070AbWBRQkr (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:40:47 -0500 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20060218022026.348e3b39.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20060218022026.348e3b39.akpm@osdl.org> <8396.1140188581@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> To: Andrew Morton Cc: David Howells , torvalds@osdl.org, keyrings@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Keys: Deal properly with strnlen_user() X-Mailer: MH-E 7.91+cvs; nmh 1.1; GNU Emacs 22.0.50.1 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:40:31 +0000 Message-ID: <3386.1140280831@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > ug. Well it's your code ;) Yeah... > It should really parameterise `ret' too. > > Are you sure you want to do this? From my reading, doing it with plain old > subroutines would work? That complicates the error handling and potentially produces less optimal code:-/ I think bringing it together though is definitely the right thing to do: fewer bits to fix and all that. Davud