[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180626103959.79e92a35@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:39:59 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Namit Gupta <gupta.namit@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pankaj.m@...sung.com,
a.sahrawat@...sung.com, himanshu.m@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: remove unnecessary kmalloc() from syslog during
clear
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:43:32 +0200
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> On Mon 2018-06-25 23:44:07, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (06/25/18 10:37), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > Is IMHO rather ugly.
> >
> > Either way works for me. So I'll leave it to you and Petr to decide :)
> >
> > > And the original patch has one more advantage. If buf and clear are
> > > both NULL/zero, we don't take any locks.
> >
> > But we never use syslog_print_all(buf = NULL, clear = false). It's either
> > NULL/true [move forward clear idx, do not copy to user], or !NULL/use defined
> > value [copy to user, move or don't move clear idx forward]
>
> Yup, I suggest the following version as a compromise. It has the code
> duplication but I agree that it is negligible. Otherwise, it looks
> cleaner.
>
This looks fine. For proper history though, what I do in this case,
would be to make this into two patches. One with Namit's original
patch, and then a second that removes the code duplication (your patch).
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists