olaf@bigred.inka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
> > 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.
Isn't a human-readable address already stored somewhere for AF_UNIX
sockets? Therefore, these addresses could be printed directly.
> But it is sub-optimal to pepper the kernel stack every here and
> there with >100-byte buffers.
Yes, of course.
> > 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?)
Implement a secondary stack, and you can return unconstrained objects
safely. ;)
-
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 - 21:00:14 EST