Re: [PATCH] tracing: make ftrace_print_array_seq compute buf_len

["Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>]

Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> writes:

> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:22:02 +0100
> Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Yes, please add that info to the change log.

It was ftrace's own __print_array, I'll add the info to v2.

>
>> 
>> > 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@linaro.org>
>> > ---
>> >  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".
>
> I agree, please change the variable name to "count", that will make more
> sense.

OK I'll re-spin today.

>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Steve

-- 
Alex Bennée