From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: m.nazarewicz@samsung.com (=?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBOYXphcmV3aWN6?=) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:55:12 +0200 Subject: [RFCv5 3/9] mm: cma: Added SysFS support In-Reply-To: <20100907060818.GA2609@kroah.com> References: <9771a9c07874a642bb587f4c0ebf886d720332b6.1283749231.git.mina86@mina86.com> <20100906210747.GA5863@kroah.com> <20100907060818.GA2609@kroah.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 07:31:30AM +0200, Micha?? Nazarewicz wrote: >> Thanks for reviewing the sysfs part. Actually, I was never really sure >> if I shouldn't rather put this code to debugfs and you got me convinced >> that I should. Sysfs somehow looked more appealing from kernel's API >> point of view -- things seem to be more organised in sysfs than in >> debugfs. It seems I'll have to port it to debugfs after all On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:08:18 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > Yes, debugfs looks like a much better place for this. I'll fix that in v6 then. >>>> +static ssize_t cma_sysfs_region_name_show(struct cma_region *reg, char *page) >>>> +{ >>>> + return reg->name ? snprintf(page, PAGE_SIZE, "%s\n", reg->name) : 0; >>>> +} >>> Is a name field ever really going to be bigger than a page? >> For numeric values you are right that snprintf() is a bit paranoid, >> still I see no good reason why not to use it. > Same goes for no good reason to use it :) I somehow prefer to always use "safe" versions of the string manipulation functions -- it's better to use it everywhere then to forget it in one place. Call to sprintf() is translated to vsnprintf() anyway so there's no performance gain. -- Best regards, _ _ | Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o | Computer Science, Micha? "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o) +----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--