[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190411024749.tddkzalul4uhcjuy@treble>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 21:47:49 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 20/41] backtrace-test: Simplify stack trace handling
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:28:14PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Replace the indirection through struct stack_trace by using the storage
> array based interfaces.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> ---
> kernel/backtracetest.c | 11 +++--------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/backtracetest.c
> +++ b/kernel/backtracetest.c
> @@ -48,19 +48,14 @@ static void backtrace_test_irq(void)
> #ifdef CONFIG_STACKTRACE
> static void backtrace_test_saved(void)
> {
> - struct stack_trace trace;
> unsigned long entries[8];
> + unsigned int nent;
"Nent" isn't immediately readable to my eyes. How about just good old
"nr_entries"? (for this patch and all the others)
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists