On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 08:43:24AM +0100, Rodrigo Alencar wrote: > On 18/06/26 21:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 05:14:19PM +0100, Rodrigo Alencar wrote: > > > On 18/06/26 16:06, Nuno Sá wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 02:27:22PM +0100, Rodrigo Alencar via B4 Relay > > > > wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > + dev_attr->attr.name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s%s", prefix, > > > > > postfix); > > > > > + if (!dev_attr->attr.name) > > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > I don't oppose the change. Looks like a nice cleanup. > > > > May I oppose it? I found use scnprintf() is harder to follow in comparison > > to > > nice kasprintf() that takes care for the dynamically allocated buffer. > > In the next patch the function is reused in a sysfs attribute read handler, > a context wich would not be nice to have dynamic allocation. vscnprintf() is > the main building block of sysfs_emit() which limits the buffer length to > a page size, so I used scnprintf() trying not to deviate much from that. > > kasprintf() it is still used in the caller, where the logic was a bit > confusing > as it tried to avoid multiple allocations. > > > Also there is a chance to get a name silently cut due to insufficient space. > > Besides that this function can't be used (again due to 'c') in > > kasprintf()-like > > wrapper. I do not consider this as a good approach. Have you looked at > > seq_buf > > instead? > > NAME_MAX is not the maximum length a filename can have? I suppose there > should be > enough space for the channel-prefix. Indeed, seq_buf can be used and it > cleans up > things a bit as it tracks the the position in the buffer. > > > > > > > But bear in mind this very sensible as any subtle mistake means ABI > > > > breakage. > > > > Which immediately raises a question of test coverage. Do we have one? If > > not, > > this code must be accompanied with one. > > Agreed. Will see to have tests for v7.
libiio now has an emulator backend. Maybe something that can be used to test this. But ideally we can have some kunit for validation. - Nuno Sá > > > > Yes! I tried to be careful... this is dangerous stuff! > > -- > Kind regards, > > Rodrigo Alencar
