Hello, On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 02:27:23PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > If we want to fix the problem with 3/3, then this seems obviously > necessary. There may be stuff we want to optimize later (for example, I > don't think we should always make a local copy of the entire struct; if > we're only modifying one of the fields, it's better to copy that field > to a local variable and use that).
Yeap. ... > I may have misread, or it might be fixable, but I really don't like > playing these subtle games. snprintf already provides a method to > reliably detect truncation; it is up to the user to decide whether and > how to deal with that. But yes, this of course requires that snprintf > actually attempted to format the entire bitmap, which in turn requires > some way to pass the correct size all the way through to the bitmap > formatter. Agreed again. > > PATCH 3 increases the size of printf_spec.field_width (from s16 to s32). > > I'm not yet completely convinced this is the right solution. Obviously, > if other problems with the small .field_width size show up, this might > be necessary, but as long as it's only the %pb formatter (and so far > only a single user of that), I think smaller/other hammers should be > thought about. So far I think there've been two alternatives: (1) > reintroduce the dedicated bitmap pretty printer(s), (2) my half-ugly > proposal allowing the user to pass struct printf_bitmap to the %pbh[l] > specifier. I'll try to actually code up (2). I suppose (2) could work too but we really should strive to provide something convenient to print[fk] users. The balance here is pretty one-sided. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/