--- sshbuf.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/sshbuf.h b/sshbuf.h index 78e32264..4b71405a 100644 --- a/sshbuf.h +++ b/sshbuf.h @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ int sshbuf_allocate(struct sshbuf *buf, size_t len); /* * Reserve len bytes in buf. * Returns 0 on success and a pointer to the first reserved byte via the - * optional dpp parameter or a negative * SSH_ERR_* error code on failure. + * optional dpp parameter or a negative SSH_ERR_* error code on failure. */ int sshbuf_reserve(struct sshbuf *buf, size_t len, u_char **dpp); -- 2.26.2
On 26/4/20 11:20 am, Michael Forney wrote:> --- > sshbuf.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/sshbuf.h b/sshbuf.h > index 78e32264..4b71405a 100644 > --- a/sshbuf.h > +++ b/sshbuf.h > @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ int sshbuf_allocate(struct sshbuf *buf, size_t len); > /* > * Reserve len bytes in buf. > * Returns 0 on success and a pointer to the first reserved byte via the > - * optional dpp parameter or a negative * SSH_ERR_* error code on failure. > + * optional dpp parameter or a negative SSH_ERR_* error code on failure. > */ > int sshbuf_reserve(struct sshbuf *buf, size_t len, u_char **dpp); >As a matter of principle, I argue against accepting patches like this one.? It achieves nothing of merit, and it introduces noise when comparing different versions.
On 2020-04-26, David Newall <openssh at davidnewall.com> wrote:> As a matter of principle, I argue against accepting patches like this > one. It achieves nothing of merit, and it introduces noise when > comparing different versions.The merit is that it prevents confusion (or at least, a double-take) for anyone reading this code for the remainder of its lifetime, especially since the '*' character is often used as the multiplication operator, and here it is adjacent to the word "negative", which further increases this association. Personally, I think this outweighs the one-time tiny bit of noise between the two versions.