Re: [PATCH 3/7] dlm: Use seq_is_full - remove seq_printf returns

[Petr Mladek]

On Mon 2014-10-27 16:17:24, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Note, I've started with Joe's patches and I'm massaging them for
> something I can work with.
> 
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:34:35 +0200
> Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > -		rv = seq_printf(s, "\"\nInvalid master %d\n",
> > > -				res->res_nodeid);
> > > -	if (rv)
> > > +		seq_printf(s, "\"\nInvalid master %d\n", res->res_nodeid);
> > > +	if (seq_is_full(s))
> > >  		goto out;
> > 
> > I would check for seq_overflow()
> > 
> > Etc. There are needed many more changes if we agree on introducing
> > seq_is_full() and seq_overflow().
> 
> As I'm looking at this code, I'm thinking that we never
> really care about seq_is_full(). We only really care if
> seq_overflowed(), in which the contents will be discarded.
> 
> Rational? Because if we break when seq_is_full(), my new logic wont
> throw away the result. If we break out of the function when it's full
> and not when it has overflowed, then we may never print out the rest of
> the content, as the seq_file code will still use a full buffer that
> hasn't overflowed.
> 
> I'm thinking of switching everything to use seq_has_overflowed() and
> try again.
> 
> Thoughts?

Sounds good to me.

Best Regards,
Petr
--
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/