Re: [PATCH] seq_buf: Introduce DECLARE_SEQ_BUF and seq_buf_cstr()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:07:28 -0700
Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Solve two ergonomic issues with struct seq_buf:

"ergonomic"? Does it cause carpal tunnel? ;-)

> 
> 1) Too much boilerplate is required to initialize:
> 
> 	struct seq_buf s;
> 	char buf[32];
> 
> 	seq_buf_init(s, buf, sizeof(buf));
> 
> Instead, we can build this directly on the stack. Provide
> DECLARE_SEQ_BUF() macro to do this:
> 
> 	DECLARE_SEQ_BUF(s, 32);
> 
> 2) %NUL termination is fragile and requires 2 steps to get a valid
>    C String (and is a layering violation exposing the "internals" of
>    seq_buf):
> 
> 	seq_buf_terminate(s);
> 	do_something(s->buffer);
> 
> Instead, we can just return s->buffer direction after terminating it
> in refactored seq_buf_terminate(), now known as seq_buf_cstr():
> 
> 	do_soemthing(seq_buf_cstr(s));

Do we really need to call it _cstr? Why not just have seq_buf_str() ?

I mean, this is C, do we need to state that in the name too?

BTW, I'm perfectly fine with this change, just the naming I have issues
with.

-- Steve