Re: [PATCH v2] seq_buf: Introduce DECLARE_SEQ_BUF and seq_buf_str()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 23:20:15 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > +#define DECLARE_SEQ_BUF(NAME, SIZE)					\
> > +	char __ ## NAME ## _buffer[SIZE] = "";				\
> > +	struct seq_buf NAME = { .buffer = &__ ## NAME ## _buffer,	\
> > +				.size = SIZE }  
> 
> Hmm... Wouldn't be more readable to have it as
> 
> #define DECLARE_SEQ_BUF(NAME, SIZE)			\
> 	char __ ## NAME ## _buffer[SIZE] = "";		\
> 	struct seq_buf NAME = {				\
> 		.buffer = &__ ## NAME ## _buffer,	\
> 		.size = SIZE,				\
> 	}
> 
> ?

I agree with the above.

> 
> ...
> 
> > +static inline char *seq_buf_str(struct seq_buf *s)
> >  {
> >  	if (WARN_ON(s->size == 0))
> > -		return;
> > +		return "";  
> 
> I'm wondering why it's a problem to have an empty string?

Not sure what you mean? With s->size = 0, s->buffer may not have been
assigned. That shouldn't be the case, but it does make it more robust.

-- Steve


> 
> >  	if (seq_buf_buffer_left(s))
> >  		s->buffer[s->len] = 0;
> >  	else
> >  		s->buffer[s->size - 1] = 0;
> > +
> > +	return s->buffer;
> >  }  
>