> addrstr_t is sufficient if it's large enough to accommodate the
> printable representation of all addresses.
Which is rather large. AF_UNIX allows 108 bytes, although I think this
is really the maximum. But it is sub-optimal to pepper the kernel
stack every here and there with >100-byte buffers.
> printk() has to be in every kernel, and you don't want to have all
> this address formatting code inside it, do you? ;) (You can't make it
> a compile-time option because modules won't work properly.)
Okay, I'll buy that, although that gut feeling is telling me it must
be possible somehow to implement this dynamically (Object.toString(),
anyone?)
But I just found another, more severe reason against printk: gcc
woudln't know how to check the new types.
Olaf
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:12 EST