Re: [PATCH 07/12] perf script: Pad dso name for --call-trace

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 06:29:07PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 7, 2019, at 1:13 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 09:38:55PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> > 
> > SNIP
> > 
> >>> 
> >>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-99g9rg4p20a1o99vr0nkjhq8@git.kernel.org
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> >>> ---
> >>> tools/include/linux/kernel.h  |  1 +
> >>> tools/lib/vsprintf.c          | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>> tools/perf/builtin-script.c   |  1 +
> >>> tools/perf/util/map.c         |  6 ++++++
> >>> tools/perf/util/symbol_conf.h |  1 +
> >>> 5 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
> >>> 
> >>> diff --git a/tools/include/linux/kernel.h b/tools/include/linux/kernel.h
> >>> index 857d9e22826e..cba226948a0c 100644
> >>> --- a/tools/include/linux/kernel.h
> >>> +++ b/tools/include/linux/kernel.h
> >>> @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@
> >>> 
> >>> int vscnprintf(char *buf, size_t size, const char *fmt, va_list args);
> >>> int scnprintf(char * buf, size_t size, const char * fmt, ...);
> >>> +int scnprintf_pad(char * buf, size_t size, const char * fmt, ...);
> >>> 
> >>> #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) + __must_be_array(arr))
> >>> 
> >>> diff --git a/tools/lib/vsprintf.c b/tools/lib/vsprintf.c
> >>> index e08ee147eab4..149a15013b23 100644
> >>> --- a/tools/lib/vsprintf.c
> >>> +++ b/tools/lib/vsprintf.c
> >>> @@ -23,3 +23,22 @@ int scnprintf(char * buf, size_t size, const char * fmt, ...)
> >>> 
> >>>       return (i >= ssize) ? (ssize - 1) : i;
> >>> }
> >>> +
> >>> +int scnprintf_pad(char * buf, size_t size, const char * fmt, ...)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	ssize_t ssize = size;
> >>> +	va_list args;
> >>> +	int i;
> >> 
> >> nit: I guess we can avoid mixing int, ssize_t and size_t here?
> > 
> > I copied that from scnprintf ;-)
> > 
> > the thing is that at the end we call vsnprintf, which takes size_t
> > as size param and returns int, so there will be casting at some
> > point in any case..
> > 
> > I guess the ssize_t was introduced to compare the size_t value with int
> > 
> 
> Interesting. Given scnprintf works fine, I think we can keep the patch
> as-is. 

I actualy found off by one issue in here.. I'll send new version

thanks,
jirka