Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v4 00/12] introduce skip_spaces(), reducing code size plus some clean-ups

From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>
To: "André Goddard Rosa" <andre.goddard@gmail.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v4 00/12] introduce skip_spaces(), reducing  code size plus some clean-ups
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:55:32 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0911081754360.30674@obet.zrqbmnf.qr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b8bf37780911080852l10d11f4ele5bf6a6aed94c5fe@mail.gmail.com>

On Sunday 2009-11-08 17:52, André Goddard Rosa wrote:

>Hi, James!
>
>On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:05 PM, James Bottomley
><James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>> Before we embark on something as massive as this, could we take a step
>> back.  I agree that if I were coming up with the strstip() interface
>> today I probably wouldn't have given it two overloaded uses.
>>
>> However, I think the function, in spite of this minor issue, is very
>> usable.  I still don't understand why people thought adding a
>> __must_check, which is what damaged one of the overloaded uses, is a
>> good idea.
>
>Differently of "static void strip(char *str)"@scripts/kconfig/conf.c ,
>this function
>does not moves the characters to the beginning of the string, so that if that
>string is going to be reused it should refer to the newly returned string start.
>
>I've changed it to remove the const and return a "char *".
>
>Do you think __must_check is not needed as well?

If you called strstrip, and not use its result, what good would that
do besides being effectively a strrtrim? __must_check is a good thing IMO.