From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Srdjan Todorovic Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:51:20 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] memory zeroing macros Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:34:34PM -0500, burns.ethan@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 04:32:11AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > or maybe this really is just not worth the effort. who knows? > > > > I don't think its worth the effort. Changing the name on this wouldn't add > > any readability. memset(dest, 0, len) is very clear, in my opinion. Also, > > there's nothing really error prone about it... I see no advantage. > > Not true at all, 0 and len get switched a lot accidentally. See the > archives for times people have swept the kernel tree to fix this issue > up. I agree with you here, Greg, about accidentally switching the args to memset(). However just because someone (I've done this in the past, damn hard to debug since you don't expect to make this silly mistake) can do: if (x = 0) { } doesn't mean that we should discourage if statements. The macros from the wiki page add yet another set of macros/functions that someone has to learn. memset() should be really well-known to anyone doing C for a while. Plus with new code, comes the possibility of abuse and bugs (eg. the macros in the wiki page don't protect the arguement with brackets). Thanks, Srdjan _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors