[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YE9RK89jLbLQcSEq@chrisdown.name>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:20:59 +0000
From: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] printk: Userspace format enumeration support
Petr Mladek writes:
>> I don't feel strongly that this is more clear though, so maybe you
>> mean something else?
>
>I was pretty tired when reviewing the patch. It was not easy for me
>to create the mental model of the code. I felt that some other names
>would have made it easier.
>
>Also the tricky pi_next() implementation did not help much. It looks
>like you changed the code many times to get it working and did not
>clean it at the end.
No worries. I'm not totally clear on what you're asking for though: do you
meant that you'd like the SEQ_START_TOKEN logic to only be present for
pi_start, or to pull out the logic currently in pi_next into another function
and call it from both, or?
In my mind, pi_start is really just a special case of pi_next, so the code flow
makes sense to me. I'm happy to change it to whatever you like, but it's not
immediately obvious to me what that is :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists