On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 09:00 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:56:32AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 02:50:56PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > To avoid clashing with user variables.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > util/util.h | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/util/util.h b/util/util.h
> > > index cbf0deca2dde7b..30d32ee6b51e24 100644
> > > +++ b/util/util.h
> > > @@ -8,8 +8,8 @@
> > > * error */
> > > #define check_snprintf(buf, len, fmt, ...) \
> > > ({ \
> > > - int rc = snprintf(buf, len, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> > > - (rc < len && rc >= 0); \
> > > + int __rc__ = snprintf(buf, len, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
> >
> > It can't clash, because it is declared in the scope {..} of that define and
> > it is local to check_snprintf macro.
>
> This triggers a -Wshadow warning:
>
> int rc;
> check_snprinf(str, sizeof(str), ..)
>
> And rc is commonly used in callers, so it shouldn't.
>
> Perhaps this addresses all the concerns:
>
> /* Return true if the snprintf succeeded, false if there was truncation or
> * error */
> static inline bool __good_snprintf(size_t len, int rc)
> {
> return (rc < len && rc >= 0);
> }
>
> #define check_snprintf(buf, len, fmt, ...) \
> __good_snprintf(len, snprintf(buf, len, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__))
If an inline function will be introduced anyway, why not to make check_snprintf()
itself an inline function and use vsnprintf() instead of snprintf()?
Bart.��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���fk��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
