Hi Steven,

> Date: 2026-10-22 20:37:13-0400
> From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
>
[...]
> > 	struct seq_buf {
> > 		char    *buffer;
> > 		size_t  size;
> > 		size_t  len;
> > 	};
> > 
> > 	struct alx_seq_buf {
> > 		char  *buffer;
> > 		char  *p;
> > 		char  *end;
> > 	};
> 
> OK, I was thinking you were adding another pointer.
> 
> > 
> > 	int
> > 	main(void)
> > 	{
> > 		printf("%zu\n", sizeof(struct seq_buf));
> > 		printf("%zu\n", sizeof(struct alx_seq_buf));
> > 	}
> > 	alx@debian:~/tmp$ gcc -Wall -Wextra seq_buf_size_comparison.c 
> > 	alx@debian:~/tmp$ ./a.out 
> > 	24
> > 	24
> > 
> > size_t and pointers should always have the same size, so this doesn't
> > change the size.
> > 
> > Am I missing something?
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Alex
> > 
> > > Yes the seq_buf code can be complex, but it's in one location where it can
> > > be highly tested and verified. The point of seq_buf is to do the complexity
> > > so that other places in the kernel doesn't need to.
> 
> We could look into updating it to pointers later, but right now I
> rather keep what we have. Let's focus first on the new stuff. It's not
> that hard to validate.

I agree to doing that later.  But I want to do that later.  :-)


Have a lovely day!
Alex

> 
> -- Steve

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>