On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 11:36 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 04:40, Itagaki
> Takahiro<itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > There might be some places to replace it to strlcpy() instead.
>
> Can't comment on that without looking at the code, but it wouldn't surprise me.
There are some performance tradeoffs between these variants, and we
already did change all (most?) of the not performance-critical calls to
strlcpy a while ago.