Re: [RFC][PATCH 04/12 v3] tracing: Convert seq_buf_path() to be like seq_path()

Petr Mladek
2014-11-06T14:18:31Z

On Wed 2014-11-05 15:10:53, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 15:45:53 +0100
> Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz> wrote:
>
>
> > > */
> > > -int seq_buf_path(struct seq_buf *s, const struct path *path)
> > > +int seq_buf_path(struct seq_buf *s, const struct path *path, const char *esc)
> > > {
> > > - unsigned int len = SEQ_BUF_LEFT(s);
> > > - unsigned char *p;
> > > -
> > > - WARN_ON(s->size == 0);
> >
> > I would keep this check.
>
> Yeah, I could.

great :-)

> >
> > > - p = d_path(path, s->buffer + s->len, len);
> > > - if (!IS_ERR(p)) {
> > > - p = mangle_path(s->buffer + s->len, p, "\n");
> > > - if (p) {
> > > - s->len = p - s->buffer;
> > > - return 0;
> > > + char *buf = s->buffer + s->len;
> > > + size_t size = SEQ_BUF_LEFT(s);
> >
> > I would use the variable name "len" to make it consistent with
> > the other fucntions in seq_buf.c.
>
> Note, seq_path() is a different beast than the other seq_*() functions
> (this will be keeping a return code). And the inconsistency is in
> seq_file.c as well. I'm not saying we shouldn't keep it consistent. But
> as this patch is to make seq_buf like seq_file, I'll keep the
> inconsistencies the same too.

Ah, I have missed this.

> We can always do a clean up later.

Fair enough. The result of this patch set (safe printing of
backtraces from all CPUs) is more important than this clean up.

[...]

> >
> > > - return -1;
> > > + if (res > 0)
> > > + s->len += res;
> > > +
> > > + return res;
> >
> > It returns -1 on failure and the number of written characters on
> > success. This is incompatible with the other seq_buf functions
> > and with the comment above this function. Also it changes the
> > return value from trace_seq_path().
> >
> > I do not mind about the used scheme but I think that we should
> > make it consistent.
> >
>
> As seq_file has had this inconsistency for a long time, and this code
> is to try to merge the code between trace_seq and seq_file, I'm going
> to follow seq_file as that has been around much longer than trace_seq.

I see. Well, we still need to fix trace_seq_path() or its callers.
For example, seq_print_user_ip() checks trace_seq_path() return value
and expects 0 on failure.

Best Regards,
Petr