Re: [PATCH] tracing: make ftrace_print_array_seq compute buf_len
From: Alex BennÃe
Date: Tue Apr 28 2015 - 10:40:34 EST
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:22:02 +0100
> Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:17:48PM +0100, Alex BennÃe wrote:
>> > The only caller to this function was getting it wrong. I favoured
>> What caller?
>> Wrong in what way?
> Yes, please add that info to the change log.
It was ftrace's own __print_array, I'll add the info to v2.
>> > pushing the calculation to as close to the need as possible rather than
>> > fixing the one caller.
>> This seems reasonable, but...
>> > Signed-off-by: Alex BennÃe <alex.bennee@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > include/linux/ftrace_event.h | 2 +-
>> > kernel/trace/trace_output.c | 3 ++-
>> > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace_event.h b/include/linux/ftrace_event.h
>> > index c674ee8..e6b0262 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/ftrace_event.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace_event.h
>> > @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ const char *ftrace_print_hex_seq(struct trace_seq *p,
>> > const unsigned char *buf, int len);
>> > const char *ftrace_print_array_seq(struct trace_seq *p,
>> > - const void *buf, int buf_len,
>> > + const void *buf, int len,
>> How is the name "len" less confusing than "buf_len"?
>> I suggest matching the name to the equivalent argument of the
>> __print_array macro -- i.e., "count".
> I agree, please change the variable name to "count", that will make more
OK I'll re-spin today.
> -- Steve
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/