On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 14:31:19 +0000 "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I am not familiar with tricks in BPF or ftrace code where this actually > > might > > be implicitly called via a macro, but brief grep gives nothing that might > > point > > to that. > > I've got an all-yes build (well, most after I took out broken stuff) booting > with it, and it has CONFIG_BINARY_PRINTF=y and CONFIG_FTRACE=y . > > trace_seq.c uses seq_buf_bprintf which uses bstr_printf rather than the plain > bprintf() that I've deleted. > Not sure where to dig in BPF, but I've had a fairly good grep around. I believe it is safe to delete. It looks like bprintf() was added for completeness, where as everything is just using the vbin_printf() directly. bprintf() is nothing more than a wrapper around it in case someone wanted to use binary prints directly. But I'm not sure there's a good use case for it, as all users would likely need to add some code around it for processing (like trace.c does). Send a v2 and I could take it for v6.13. -- Steve
