On 21/02/2020 14.05, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2020-02-20 16:02:48, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>> I would like to see it in 5.6, so that it is backported to 5.4 and 5.5.
>
> OK, it would make sense to make the patch minimalist to make it
> easier for backporting.
>
>
>> Please note that I sent v2 of my patch ("[PATCH v2] vsprintf: don't
>> obfuscate NULL and error pointers"), fixing null_pointer() and adding
>> error_pointer() test cases, which conflicts with this restructure.
>
> IMHO, v2 creates even more mess in print tests that would need
> to be fixed later.
>
> If we agree to have a minimalist patch for backport
> then I suggest to take v1. We could clean up and update
> tests later.
>
> Rasmus, others, is anyone against this approach (v1 first,
> tests later)?
Sorry to be that guy, but yes, I'm against changing the behavior of
vsnprintf() without at least some test(s) added to the test suite - the
lack of machine-checked documentation in the form of tests is what led
to that regression in the first place.
But I agree that there's no point adding another helper function and
muddying the test suite even more (especially as the name error_pointer
is too close to the name errptr() I chose a few months back for the %pe).
So how about
- remove the now stale test_hashed("%p", NULL); from null_pointer()
- add tests of "%p", NULL and "%p", ERR_PTR(-123) to plain()
and we save testing the "%px" case for when we figure out a good name
for a helper for that (explicit_pointer? pointer_as_hex?)
?
Rasmus
