ddi_strdup [PSARC/2009/015 Self Review]

[Darren Reed]

Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 02:07:57PM +0100, Darren Reed wrote:
>   
>> Christopher Horne wrote:
>>     
>>> ....
>>> 	These functions will be documented in a new man page,
>>> 	string(9F).  For consistency with string(3C), the new
>>> 	string(9F) man page will also subsume contents of strchr(9F),
>>> 	strcmp(9F), strspn(9F), and strlen(9F).
>>>
>>>       
>> Is there any particular reason why we aren't going to whole
>> way here and documenting the same functions on string(9F)
>> as we do with string(3C)? (i.e. why does strcpy(9f) need
>> to be separate, or did that just get missed in the writing of
>> this email?)
>>
>>     
>
> i'm preparing a large putback that was going to introduce multiple
> private versions of strcpy() and strfree().  one of my code reviewers
> pointed out that this seemed suboptimal, and i agreed.  hence this case.
>
> by all means, you should feel free to determine if there are any more
> string(3C) interfaces missing from the ddi and add them yourself, but i
> didn't make that a part of this case.
>   

It's more that I was curious if there was enough synergy with
what you're doing and what exists to provide a more consistent
feel to the documentation between sections 3C and 9F - not to
add new interfaces to the ddi. e.g. strcpy(3c), etc, all point to
string(3c), so why should strcpy(9f) need to be independat to
string(9f)?


>> For completeness, can a draft copy of the proposed
>> string(9F) please be placed in the case directory?
>>
>>     
>
> given how trivial these interfaces are, i'd prefer not to.  i believe
> the current proposal compleatly documents the semantics of the new
> interfaces i'm introducing.  (hence adding man pages would just be
> adding noise to this case.)  if your confused about how these interfaces
> will behave then please ask more specific questions and i can improved
> the case material.  if you're just interested in reviewing the final man
> pages i can add you on the interest list of the man page bug i'll be
> filing.  hopefully your ok with this...
>   

I think adding me to the interest list for the bug would be fine.

I'm perfectly happy with the architecture (so please don't count
me as dissenting), I think this is just something for the docs folks
to think about after.

Darren