Re: [PATCH 7/7] docg3: Fix miuse of seq_printf return value

[Brian Norris]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:27:40 -0700
> Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 12:05 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:57:57 -0700
>> > Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 11:13 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > > > I'm going to be working on changes to remove the return value of
>> > > > seq_printf() and friends.
>> > >
>> > > I'm sure you know all of this, but for anyone else:
>> > >
>> > > This doesn't need to be done in a single pass.
>> >
>> > Yeah, I took a look at all the places, and I've decided to take it off
>> > in chunks. I'm starting with the ones you posted, and will try to get
>> > acks for them. And then go after other chunks as I have time.
>> >
>> > I would like to get this done before I do my merge of trace_seq and
>> > seq_file, but I'm thinking I may have to do that in parallel.
>>
>> I think the most important thing is to get the
>> seq_is_overflown (or seq_has_overflowed or whatever
>> other name is chosen) function added then the rest
>> of the patches can be applied whenever maintainers
>> (or Andrew or trivial or ...) pick them up.
>
> I can get that in without much of an issue. But the merge of trace_seq
> and seq_file would be easier if I didn't have to worry about return
> values. Which is why I want to get this in quickly.

Whatever you'd like. Please, have my ack and keep the patch in your own branch!

Acked-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx>

It's no problem if we both have the patch, is it? Or if I see it in
linux-next, then I may drop it from my tree.

Regards,
Brian
--
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/