linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/7] netconsole: refactor CPU number formatting into separate function

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: <20250225-diamond-gaur-of-anger-b0f77e@leitao>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 03:09:20 -0800
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/7] netconsole: refactor CPU number formatting
 into separate function

Hello Simon,

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:17:48AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 05:52:07AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > Extract CPU number formatting logic from prepare_extradata() into a new
> > append_cpu_nr() function.
> > 
> > This refactoring improves code organization by isolating CPU number
> > formatting into its own function while reducing the complexity of
> > prepare_extradata().
> > 
> > The change prepares the codebase for the upcoming taskname feature by
> > establishing a consistent pattern for handling sysdata features.
> > 
> > The CPU number formatting logic itself remains unchanged; only its
> > location has moved to improve maintainability.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/netconsole.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/netconsole.c b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> > index c086e2fe51f874812379e6f89c421d7d32980f91..26ff2ed4de16bce58e9eeaf8b5b362dfaafaca0a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> > @@ -1117,13 +1117,21 @@ static void populate_configfs_item(struct netconsole_target *nt,
> >  	init_target_config_group(nt, target_name);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int append_cpu_nr(struct netconsole_target *nt, int offset)
> > +{
> > +	/* Append cpu=%d at extradata_complete after userdata str */
> > +	return scnprintf(&nt->extradata_complete[offset],
> > +			 MAX_EXTRADATA_ENTRY_LEN, " cpu=%u\n",
> > +			 raw_smp_processor_id());
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * prepare_extradata - append sysdata at extradata_complete in runtime
> >   * @nt: target to send message to
> >   */
> >  static int prepare_extradata(struct netconsole_target *nt)
> >  {
> > -	int sysdata_len, extradata_len;
> > +	int extradata_len;
> >  
> >  	/* userdata was appended when configfs write helper was called
> >  	 * by update_userdata().
> > @@ -1133,12 +1141,8 @@ static int prepare_extradata(struct netconsole_target *nt)
> >  	if (!(nt->sysdata_fields & SYSDATA_CPU_NR))
> >  		goto out;
> >  
> > -	/* Append cpu=%d at extradata_complete after userdata str */
> > -	sysdata_len = scnprintf(&nt->extradata_complete[nt->userdata_length],
> > -				MAX_EXTRADATA_ENTRY_LEN, " cpu=%u\n",
> > -				raw_smp_processor_id());
> > -
> > -	extradata_len += sysdata_len;
> > +	if (nt->sysdata_fields & SYSDATA_CPU_NR)
> > +		extradata_len += append_cpu_nr(nt, nt->userdata_length);
> 
> Hi Breno,
> 
> As this is the only caller of append_cpu_nr() I'm wondering
> if it would be nicer if nt was the only argument to append_cpu_nr().

Yes, I can do it. I just kept both functions the same:

  static int append_taskname(struct netconsole_target *nt, int offset)
  static int append_cpu_nr(struct netconsole_target *nt, int offset)

Another option is to use extradata_len as the second argument, instead
of nt->userdata_length. That might(?) make the code easier to read? it
would look like the following:

          extradata_len = nt->userdata_length;
          if (nt->sysdata_fields & SYSDATA_CPU_NR)
                  extradata_len += append_cpu_nr(nt, extradata_len);
          if (nt->sysdata_fields & SYSDATA_TASKNAME)
                  extradata_len += append_taskname(nt, extradata_len);

What would you write yourself?

Thank you very much for the review,
--breno