Re: [PATCH v4 next 00/23] Enhance printf()

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sat, Mar 07, 2026 at 07:02:30PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On 2026-03-02 10:17:52+0000, david.laight.linux@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> (...)
> 
> I am happy with the patches of this series.
> 
> > David Laight (23):
> >   tools/nolibc: Add _NOLIBC_OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR() to compiler.h
> 
> >   tools/nolibc/printf: Move snprintf length check to callback
> >   selftests/nolibc: Return correct value when printf test fails
> >   selftests/nolibc: check vsnprintf() output buffer before the length
> >   selftests/nolibc: Use length of 'expected' string to check snprintf() output
> >   selftests/nolibc: Check that snprintf() doesn't write beyond the buffer end
> >   selftests/nolibc: Let EXPECT_VFPRINTF() tests be skipped
> 
> >   selftests/nolibc: Rename w to written in expect_vfprintf()
> 
> Unfortunately b4 chokes on these patches because this patch is missing
> the 'v4' tag in the subject prefix. Given that the one below needs some
> changes anyways, I was lazy and applied the series only up until here.
> (Patch 1 is also not applied, as there was no user yet for
> _NOLIBC_OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR() ).
> 
> Could you rebase the series on nolibc-next, add the error handling
> to strerror_r(), fix the wording nitpicks from Willy and resend the
> patches? I can also try to fix this up locally, but that would be more
> work on my side than it would be for you I reckon.
> Let me know if this is an issue and I'll try to make it work.
> 
> Willy:
> 
> I interpreted your mail [0] as Acked-by for the whole series.
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aawDlqLdpgsfGI4r@xxxxxx/

Yep definitely!

Willy