Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/12 v3] tracing: Convert seq_buf fields to be like seq_file fields

Petr Mladek
2014-11-06T14:24:15Z

On Wed 2014-11-05 15:14:46, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 16:57:11 +0100
> Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> > On Tue 2014-11-04 10:52:42, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > >
> > > In facilitating the conversion of seq_file to use seq_buf,
> > > have the seq_buf fields match the types used by seq_file.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/seq_buf.h | 8 ++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/seq_buf.h b/include/linux/seq_buf.h
> > > index 6d1c57d6073f..a4d114e6f740 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/seq_buf.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/seq_buf.h
> > > @@ -19,10 +19,10 @@
> > > * @overflow: Set if more bytes should have been written to buffer
> > > */
> > > struct seq_buf {
> > > - unsigned char *buffer;
> > > - unsigned int size;
> > > - unsigned int len;
> > > - unsigned int readpos;
> > > + char *buffer;
> >
> > It would make sense to use "char" from the beginning. In fact, it is
> > already used on many locations in seq_buf.c. Or we might want to get
> > rid of "unsigned char" in seq_buf.c here as well.
>
> I could, but I'm being lazy ;-) No reason to change the patch series for
> something as small as this. It doesn't break bisect.
>
> >
> > > + size_t size;
> > > + size_t len;
> > > + loff_t readpos;
> >
> > I have just noticed that the variable is called "read_pos" in
> > seq_file. Are you going to sync the name later?
>
> Yeah, I purposely kept them different to find the two when needed.

I see. And if I get it right, you want to use "seq_buf" in "file_seq", so
there will be only one variable and no confusion in the end.

> >
> > Also I am a bit curious that "readpos" use another type than "len"
> > and "size". Well, this is not in the scope of this patchset. I am fine
> > with keeping "loff_t" at this point.
>
> Again, seq_file has been around for a long time with these types. But
> as you said, it's out of scope for this patch series. I'm just trying
> to keep with what's been the norm here.

Fair enough. I am fine with the explanation.

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz>

Best Regards,
Petr