On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 03:01:13AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Tue, 15 Oct 2024, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote: > > > snprintf() has the documented, but still rather strange trait of > > returning the length of the data that *would have been* written to the > > array if space were available, rather than the arguably more useful > > length of data *actually* written, [...] > > Why do you think that just returning `n - 1' in the case of a length > overflow would be more useful than returning the unmet buffer length > requirement? I think the opposite is the case: the value returned lets > you reallocate the buffer for more space and retry, and there's no other > way to figure out how much this would be. And if you need to know how > many characters were actually written, then `min(n - 1, snprintf(...))' > will do (and code you propose to replace does exactly that, open-coded). > > The change itself makes sense to me, but not your proposed description > I'm afraid. Just replacing open-coded pieces with calls to `sysfs_emit' > is enough justification. > > Maciej Thanks for taking the time to review this patch. Will submit a v2 with the description you pointed out. - Paulo A.
