Hi Jiri,
On Thu, 29 May 2014 10:37:32 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:06:05AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 May 2014 09:54:36 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:36:44AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 May 2014 19:23:34 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> >> > Adding test that setup test_dso_data__fd_limit and test
>> >> > dso data file descriptors are cached appropriately.
>> >>
>> >> [SNIP]
>> >> > +static long open_files_cnt(void)
>> >> > +{
>> >> > + char path[PATH_MAX];
>> >> > + struct dirent *dent;
>> >> > + DIR *dir;
>> >> > + long nr = 0;
>> >> > + int n;
>> >> > +
>> >> > + n = scnprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "%s/self/fd",
>> >> > procfs__mountpoint());
>> >> > + TEST_ASSERT_VAL("couldn't get fd path", n < PATH_MAX);
>> >>
>> >> Looks like an unnecessary check since the scnprintf() cannot return more
>> >> than (or equal to) PATH_MAX.
>> >
>> > once it's equal it's bad.. as the man says:
>> > "return value of size or more means that the output was truncated"
>>
>> Did you see "sn"printf?
>
> yes, I just double checked.. jirka
Please see "scn"printf then. :) It does something like below..
i = snprintf(buf, size, ...);
return (i >= size) ? : size - 1 : i;
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
