linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing: make ftrace_print_array_seq compute buf

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:00:18 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc:	Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: make ftrace_print_array_seq compute buf_len

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:22:02 +0100
Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@....com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:17:48PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > The only caller to this function was getting it wrong. I favoured
> 
> What caller?
> 
> Wrong in what way?

Yes, please add that info to the change log.

> 
> > pushing the calculation to as close to the need as possible rather than
> > fixing the one caller.
> 
> This seems reasonable, but...
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/ftrace_event.h | 2 +-
> >  kernel/trace/trace_output.c  | 3 ++-
> >  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace_event.h b/include/linux/ftrace_event.h
> > index c674ee8..e6b0262 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ftrace_event.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace_event.h
> > @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ const char *ftrace_print_hex_seq(struct trace_seq *p,
> >  				 const unsigned char *buf, int len);
> >  
> >  const char *ftrace_print_array_seq(struct trace_seq *p,
> > -				   const void *buf, int buf_len,
> > +				   const void *buf, int len,
> 
> How is the name "len" less confusing than "buf_len"?
> 
> I suggest matching the name to the equivalent argument of the
> __print_array macro -- i.e., "count".

I agree, please change the variable name to "count", that will make more
sense.

Thanks,

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/