From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753224AbbD0QjW (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:39:22 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:57199 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753172AbbD0QjR (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:39:17 -0400 Message-ID: <553E6631.6080205@arm.com> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:39:13 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: Sudeep Holla , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Pawel Moll , Andrew Morton , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitmap: remove explicit newline handling using scnprintf format string References: <1430128018-14667-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20150427161434.GF1499@htj.duckdns.org> <553E6328.2040904@arm.com> <20150427163000.GG1499@htj.duckdns.org> In-Reply-To: <20150427163000.GG1499@htj.duckdns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Tejun, On 27/04/15 17:30, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Sudeep. > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 05:26:16PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Completely agree and in-fact we did discuss that internally too. >> But since this function deals only with page size buffers, we thought >> it's highly unlikely to hit that corner case. > > Ah, yeah, right. It'd probably be worthwhile to document the above in > the description tho. > OK will update the commit log and the doxygen description. >>> Given that bitmap outputs can be pretty long, this behavior >>> difference has a minute but still non-zero chance of causing something >>> surprising. There are multiple copies of the above function in arch >>> codes too. >> >> I assumed that I had consolidated most of them in commit 5aaba36318e5 >> ("cpumask: factor out show_cpumap into separate helper function"). >> I might have missed, will have a look at it again. > > I noticed them while %pb[l] conversion but was too lazy to actually do > anything. Thanks a lot for actually taking care of them. > No worries. >>> We prolly want to audit the usages to verify that the >>> passed in buffer is always big enough at which point the above >>> function and its copies can simply be replaced with direct scnprintf() >>> calls. This function doesn't actually add anything. >> >> Ah, right that would be much simpler. > > Yeah, let's get rid of it. > /me confused, is it fine to push this patch first, and follow up later after auditing thoroughly to replace with direct scnprintf() Regards, Sudeep