On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:35:10PM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 20:10, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 10:32:27PM +0100, Dmitry Safonov via B4 Relay wrote: > > > From: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Instead of pre-allocating a fixed-sized buffer of TEST_MSG_BUFFER_SIZE > > > and printing into it, call vsnprintf() with str = NULL, which will > > > return the needed size of the buffer. This hack is documented in > > > man 3 vsnprintf. > > > > > > Essentially, in C++ terms, it re-invents std::stringstream, which is > > > going to be used to print different tracing paths and formatted strings. > > > Use it straight away in __test_print() - which is thread-safe version of > > > printing in selftests. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > Some minor nits, as it looks like there will be a v4. > > Thanks, both seem reasonable. > Did you get them with checkpatch.pl or with your trained eyes? :) > > These days I run b4 prep --check and on latest version it just gave a > bunch of fmt-strings with columns > 100. Hi Dimitry, For networking code I usually run: checkpatch.pl --strict --codespell --min-conf-desc-length=80 Where 80 is, I believe, still in line with preferences for Networking code. Although I'm not entirely sure it is applicable to this patch. As to your question, in this case I think it is the --strict that causes checkpatch to flag the issues I raised. Sorry for not mentioning that in my previous email.
