Re: [PATCH] tracing: make ftrace_print_array_seq compute buf_len

[Dave P Martin]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:17:48PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> The only caller to this function was getting it wrong. I favoured

What caller?

Wrong in what way?

> 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 Bennée <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".

Cheers
---Dave

[...]

--
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/