Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] lib/vsprintf: Avoid redundant work with 0 size

[Waiman Long]

On 2/1/22 02:12, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 31/01/2022 19.48, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 1/31/22 05:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Also it seems currently the kernel documentation is not aligned with
> > > the code
> > >
> > >     "If @size is == 0 the function returns 0."
> > >
> > > It should mention the (theoretical?) possibility of getting negative
> > > value,
> > > if vsnprintf() returns negative value.
> > AFAICS, the kernel's vsnprintf() function will not return -1.
> Even if it did, the "i < size" comparison in vscnprintf() is "int v
> size_t", so integer promotion says that even if i were negative, that
> comparison would be false, so we wouldn't forward that negative value
> anyway.
>
> > So in that
> > sense it is not fully POSIX compliant.
> Of course it's not, but not because it doesn't return -1. POSIX just
> says to return that in case of an error, and as a matter of QoI, the
> kernel's implementation simply can't (and must not) fail. There are
> other cases where we don't follow POSIX/C, e.g. in some corner cases
> around field length and precision (documented in test_printf.c), and the
> non-support of %n (and floating point and handling of wchar_t*), and the
> whole %p<> extension etc.
>
> Rasmus
Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers,
Longman