On Wed, 2021-02-10 at 13:51 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Wed 2021-02-10 00:21:37, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:53 PM Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> wrote:
[]
> > for (p = pff; p < pff + ARRAY_SIZE(pff); p++) {
>
> This looks a bit non-standard. IMHO, Joe was not against using index.
> He proposed:
>
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pfl) && buf < end; i++) {
>
> , see
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e5ea9e8b1190c2a397a1b84dd55bb9c706dc7058.ca...@perches.com/
>
> I am not sure about the (buf < end) check. It might be some
> optimization or it did fit the the old code.
I believe the buf < end bit was broken anyway.
I believe vsprintf is supposed to return the maximum possible length
of the output and the function should not restrict that. The
function should not write beyond the specified end.
> Anyway, I like the currently used:
>
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pff); i++) {
>
> It is standard, easy to understand, and thus more safe. I am sure that
> compiler will optimize it very well.
true.
