From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:64351 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751420AbaGJJux (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2014 05:50:53 -0400 Message-ID: <1404985839.5102.97.camel@smile.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] seq_file: provide an analogue of print_hex_dump() From: Andy Shevchenko To: Marek Vasut Cc: Joe Perches , Tadeusz Struk , Herbert Xu , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Helge Deller , Ingo Tuchscherer , linux390@de.ibm.com, Alexander Viro , qat-linux@intel.com, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:50:39 +0300 In-Reply-To: <201407100958.02218.marex@denx.de> References: <1404919470-26668-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <201407092239.30561.marex@denx.de> <1404940868.932.168.camel@joe-AO725> <201407100958.02218.marex@denx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 09:58 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On Wednesday, July 09, 2014 at 11:21:08 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 22:39 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > The above function looks like almost verbatim copy of print_hex_dump(). > > > The only difference I can spot is that it's calling seq_printf() instead > > > of printk(). Can you not instead generalize print_hex_dump() and based > > > on it's invocation, make it call either seq_printf() or printk() ? > > > > How do you propose doing that given any seq_ call > > requires a struct seq_file * and print_hex_dump needs > > a KERN_. > > I can imagine a rather nasty way, I can't say I would like it myself tho. The > general idea would be to pull out the entire switch {} statement into a separate > functions , one for printk() and one for seq_printf() cases. Then, have a > generic do_hex_dump() call which would take as an argument a pointer to either > of those functions and a void * to either the seq_file or level . Finally, there > would have to be a wrapper to call the do_hex_dump() with the correct function > pointer and it's associated arg. > > Nasty? Yes ... Ineffective? Most likely. It looks not good idea, yeah. > > Is there an actual value to it? > > Reducing the code duplication, but I wonder if there is a smarter solution than > the horrid one above. I have considered to modify hex_dump_to_buffer() to return how many bytes it actually proceed to the buffer. In that case we can directly print to m->buf like other seq_ calls do. But I still have doubts about it. Any opinion? -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy