Re: [PATCH 20/26 v5] seq_buf: Add seq_buf_can_fit() helper function
From: Joe Perches
Date: Mon Nov 17 2014 - 20:48:46 EST
On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 20:24 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:07:58 -0800
> Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Look at the next patch.
> > I don't have it and you are not cc'ing me.
> It's on LKML.
And? There's no convenient way to retrieve it.
> > I think you are getting carried away with the helpers.
> That's nice.
And possibly true.
> > > > I don't see it making mistakes more or less
> > > > likely, I just see it being used to avoid
> > > > setting the overflow state which seems like
> > > > more of an error than anything else.
> > > >
> > > > Why avoid setting overflow at all?
> > 
> > > It has nothing to do with overflow. Where did you get that from?
> > writing to seq_buf really only cares about overflow.
> > seq_buf -> write to buffer -> overflowed?
> > expand buffer, redo everything else when finished,
> > dump buffer
> Um, that may be the case for seq_file, but it is not the case for
> trace_seq. seq_buf is influenced by seq_file because I have a patch to
> make seq_file use it, but it's also the guts of trace_seq that has some
> different requirements. And it's also not the case with the users of
> seq_buf in the last patch.
I think your patch subject description needs expanding.
It says seq_buf, nothing about trace.
Perhaps making trace use seq internals is not the right
thing to do.
I also think you should break up this perhaps overlarge
patch set into multiple independent sets that can be applied
in separate chucks rather than all at once.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/