On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 20:24 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:07:58 -0800 > Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > > > Look at the next patch. > > I don't have it and you are not cc'ing me. > It's on LKML.
And? There's no convenient way to retrieve it. > > I think you are getting carried away with the helpers. > That's nice. And possibly true. > > > > I don't see it making mistakes more or less > > > > likely, I just see it being used to avoid > > > > setting the overflow state which seems like > > > > more of an error than anything else. > > > > > > > > Why avoid setting overflow at all? > > [] > > > It has nothing to do with overflow. Where did you get that from? > > > > writing to seq_buf really only cares about overflow. > > > > seq_buf -> write to buffer -> overflowed? > > expand buffer, redo everything else when finished, > > dump buffer > > Um, that may be the case for seq_file, but it is not the case for > trace_seq. seq_buf is influenced by seq_file because I have a patch to > make seq_file use it, but it's also the guts of trace_seq that has some > different requirements. And it's also not the case with the users of > seq_buf in the last patch. I think your patch subject description needs expanding. It says seq_buf, nothing about trace. Perhaps making trace use seq internals is not the right thing to do. I also think you should break up this perhaps overlarge patch set into multiple independent sets that can be applied in separate chucks rather than all at once. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
