On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 09:27:38AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> I agree, but only on the word 'great'. There is value in removing such
> bogosities (or rather, their presence provides negative value). It makes
> the code harder to read ("why is this instance checked, but not any of
> the other snprintfs?"); people may think that it's trying to check for
> truncation, but it does no such thing; and it contributes a few
> worthless bytes to .text (and the source).The solution to partial error checking isn't always to remove the error checking! > If you're worried about map->dev->driver->name actually ever being > 2G, > returning some almost totally random negative number isn't really > helpful (the function is supposed to return a -errno). And what makes > you think that in some hypothetical universe where the kernel's snprintf > explicit returns a negative value that it wouldn't just return -1 (aka > -EPERM)? This is going back to the discussion about having to learn the specific snprinf() implementation one is dealing with.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
