[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aVvwuWAjm3DXM2Yb@willie-the-truck>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 17:11:21 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Josephine Pfeiffer <hi@...ie.lol>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] arm64: ptdump: use seq_puts() in pt_dump_seq_puts()
macro
On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 07:04:16PM +0200, Josephine Pfeiffer wrote:
> The pt_dump_seq_puts() macro incorrectly uses seq_printf() instead of
> seq_puts(). This is both a performance issue and conceptually wrong,
> as the macro name suggests plain string output (puts) but the
> implementation uses formatted output (printf).
What's conceptually wrong with using printf() to print an unformatted
string? There are loads of printk() calls that do that and I think it's
fine.
> arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c b/arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c
> index ab9899ca1e5f..a35fcd62bf75 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
> #define pt_dump_seq_puts(m, fmt) \
> ({ \
> if (m) \
> - seq_printf(m, fmt); \
> + seq_puts(m, fmt); \
> })
Given that this macro has exactly one caller and it isn't a fast path,
wouldn't it be better to go the other way around and remove this helper
in favour of using pt_dump_seq_printf() everywhere?
i.e. something like the diff below
Will
--->8
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c b/arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c
index ab9899ca1e5f..8a03b2c9f88b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/ptdump.c
@@ -32,12 +32,6 @@
seq_printf(m, fmt, ##args); \
})
-#define pt_dump_seq_puts(m, fmt) \
-({ \
- if (m) \
- seq_printf(m, fmt); \
-})
-
static const struct ptdump_prot_bits pte_bits[] = {
{
.mask = PTE_VALID,
@@ -232,7 +226,7 @@ void note_page(struct ptdump_state *pt_st, unsigned long addr, int level,
if (st->current_prot && pg_level[st->level].bits)
dump_prot(st, pg_level[st->level].bits,
pg_level[st->level].num);
- pt_dump_seq_puts(st->seq, "\n");
+ pt_dump_seq_printf(st->seq, "\n");
if (addr >= st->marker[1].start_address) {
st->marker++;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists