Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] seq_file: provide an analogue of print_hex_dump()

From: Andy Shevchenko
Date: Thu Jul 10 2014 - 05:50:59 EST

On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 09:58 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 09, 2014 at 11:21:08 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 22:39 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > The above function looks like almost verbatim copy of print_hex_dump().
> > > The only difference I can spot is that it's calling seq_printf() instead
> > > of printk(). Can you not instead generalize print_hex_dump() and based
> > > on it's invocation, make it call either seq_printf() or printk() ?
> >
> > How do you propose doing that given any seq_<foo> call
> > requires a struct seq_file * and print_hex_dump needs
> > a KERN_<LEVEL>.
> I can imagine a rather nasty way, I can't say I would like it myself tho. The
> general idea would be to pull out the entire switch {} statement into a separate
> functions , one for printk() and one for seq_printf() cases. Then, have a
> generic do_hex_dump() call which would take as an argument a pointer to either
> of those functions and a void * to either the seq_file or level . Finally, there
> would have to be a wrapper to call the do_hex_dump() with the correct function
> pointer and it's associated arg.
> Nasty? Yes ... Ineffective? Most likely.

It looks not good idea, yeah.

> > Is there an actual value to it?
> Reducing the code duplication, but I wonder if there is a smarter solution than
> the horrid one above.

I have considered to modify hex_dump_to_buffer() to return how many
bytes it actually proceed to the buffer. In that case we can directly
print to m->buf like other seq_<foo> calls do.

But I still have doubts about it. Any opinion?

Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at