linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 20/26 v5] seq_buf: Add seq_buf_can

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]

Message-ID: <1416275317.29010.10.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:48:37 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/26 v5] seq_buf: Add seq_buf_can_fit() helper function

On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 20:24 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:07:58 -0800
> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > > Look at the next patch.
> > I don't have it and you are not cc'ing me.
> It's on LKML.

And?  There's no convenient way to retrieve it.

> > I think you are getting carried away with the helpers.
> That's nice.

And possibly true.

> > > > I don't see it making mistakes more or less
> > > > likely, I just see it being used to avoid
> > > > setting the overflow state which seems like
> > > > more of an error than anything else.
> > > > 
> > > > Why avoid setting overflow at all?
> > []
> > > It has nothing to do with overflow. Where did you get that from?
> > 
> > writing to seq_buf really only cares about overflow.
> > 
> > seq_buf -> write to buffer -> overflowed?
> > expand buffer, redo everything else when finished,
> > dump buffer
> 
> Um, that may be the case for seq_file, but it is not the case for
> trace_seq. seq_buf is influenced by seq_file because I have a patch to
> make seq_file use it, but it's also the guts of trace_seq that has some
> different requirements. And it's also not the case with the users of
> seq_buf in the last patch.

I think your patch subject description needs expanding.
It says seq_buf, nothing about trace.

Perhaps making trace use seq internals is not the right
thing to do.

I also think you should break up this perhaps overlarge
patch set into multiple independent sets that can be applied
in separate chucks rather than all at once.


--
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/