Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Hexdump Enhancements
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 11:14 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
>> On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 17:35 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 09:15 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 09:31 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 12:04 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
>> > > > > From: Alastair D'Silva
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Apologies for the large CC list, it's a heads up for those
>> > > > > responsible
>> > > > > for subsystems where a prototype change in generic code causes
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > change
>> > > > > in those subsystems.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This series enhances hexdump.
>> > > >
>> > > > Still not a fan of these patches.
>> > >
>> > > I'm afraid there's not too much action I can take on that, I'm
>> > > happy to
>> > > address specific issues though.
>> > >
>> > > > > These improve the readability of the dumped data in certain
>> > > > > situations
>> > > > > (eg. wide terminals are available, many lines of empty bytes
>> > > > > exist,
>> > > > > etc).
>> >
>> > I think it's generally overkill for the desired uses.
>>
>> I understand where you're coming from, however, these patches make it a
>> lot easier to work with large chucks of binary data. I think it makes
>> more sense to have these patches upstream, even though committed code
>> may not necessarily have all the features enabled, as it means that
>> devs won't have to apply out-of-tree patches during development to make
>> larger dumps manageable.
>>
>> > > > Changing hexdump's last argument from bool to int is odd.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Think of it as replacing a single boolean with many booleans.
>> >
>> > I understand it. It's odd.
>> >
>> > I would rather not have a mixture of true, false, and apparently
>> > random collections of bitfields like 0xd or 0b1011 or their
>> > equivalent or'd defines.
>> >
>>
>> Where's the mixture? What would you propose instead?
>
> create a hex_dump_to_buffer_ext with a new argument
> and a new static inline for the old hex_dump_to_buffer
> without modifying the argument list that calls
> hex_dump_to_buffer with whatever added argument content
> you need.
>
> Something like:
>
> static inline
> int hex_dump_to_buffer(const void *buf, size_t len, int rowsize,
> int groupsize, char *linebuf, size_t linebuflen,
> bool ascii)
> {
> return hex_dump_to_buffer_ext(buf, len, rowsize, groupsize,
> linebuf, linebuflen, ascii, 0);
> }
>
> and remove EXPORT_SYMBOL(hex_dump_to_buffer)
If you decide to do something like this, I'd actually suggest you drop
the bool ascii parameter from hex_dump_to_buffer() altogether, and
replace the callers that do require ascii with
hex_dump_to_buffer_ext(..., HEXDUMP_ASCII). Even if that also requires
touching all callers.
But no strong opinions, really.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Hexdump Enhancements
On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 09:31 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 12:04 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > > From: Alastair D'Silva > > > > Apologies for the large CC list, it's a heads up for those > > responsible > > for subsystems where a prototype change in generic code causes a > > change > > in those subsystems. > > > > This series enhances hexdump. > > Still not a fan of these patches. I'm afraid there's not too much action I can take on that, I'm happy to address specific issues though. > > > These improve the readability of the dumped data in certain > > situations > > (eg. wide terminals are available, many lines of empty bytes exist, > > etc). > > Changing hexdump's last argument from bool to int is odd. > Think of it as replacing a single boolean with many booleans. > Perhaps a new function should be added instead of changing > the existing hexdump. > There's only a handful of consumers, I don't think there is a value-add in creating more wrappers vs updating the existing callers. -- Alastair D'Silva mob: 0423 762 819 skype: alastair_dsilva Twitter: @EvilDeece blog: http://alastair.d-silva.org ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Hexdump Enhancements
On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 17:35 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 09:15 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 09:31 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 12:04 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > > > > From: Alastair D'Silva > > > > > > > > Apologies for the large CC list, it's a heads up for those > > > > responsible > > > > for subsystems where a prototype change in generic code causes > > > > a > > > > change > > > > in those subsystems. > > > > > > > > This series enhances hexdump. > > > > > > Still not a fan of these patches. > > > > I'm afraid there's not too much action I can take on that, I'm > > happy to > > address specific issues though. > > > > > > These improve the readability of the dumped data in certain > > > > situations > > > > (eg. wide terminals are available, many lines of empty bytes > > > > exist, > > > > etc). > > I think it's generally overkill for the desired uses. I understand where you're coming from, however, these patches make it a lot easier to work with large chucks of binary data. I think it makes more sense to have these patches upstream, even though committed code may not necessarily have all the features enabled, as it means that devs won't have to apply out-of-tree patches during development to make larger dumps manageable. > > > > Changing hexdump's last argument from bool to int is odd. > > > > > > > Think of it as replacing a single boolean with many booleans. > > I understand it. It's odd. > > I would rather not have a mixture of true, false, and apparently > random collections of bitfields like 0xd or 0b1011 or their > equivalent or'd defines. > Where's the mixture? What would you propose instead? -- Alastair D'Silva mob: 0423 762 819 skype: alastair_dsilva Twitter: @EvilDeece blog: http://alastair.d-silva.org ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Hexdump Enhancements
On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 11:14 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 17:35 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 09:15 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 09:31 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 12:04 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote:
> > > > > From: Alastair D'Silva
> > > > >
> > > > > Apologies for the large CC list, it's a heads up for those
> > > > > responsible
> > > > > for subsystems where a prototype change in generic code causes
> > > > > a
> > > > > change
> > > > > in those subsystems.
> > > > >
> > > > > This series enhances hexdump.
> > > >
> > > > Still not a fan of these patches.
> > >
> > > I'm afraid there's not too much action I can take on that, I'm
> > > happy to
> > > address specific issues though.
> > >
> > > > > These improve the readability of the dumped data in certain
> > > > > situations
> > > > > (eg. wide terminals are available, many lines of empty bytes
> > > > > exist,
> > > > > etc).
> >
> > I think it's generally overkill for the desired uses.
>
> I understand where you're coming from, however, these patches make it a
> lot easier to work with large chucks of binary data. I think it makes
> more sense to have these patches upstream, even though committed code
> may not necessarily have all the features enabled, as it means that
> devs won't have to apply out-of-tree patches during development to make
> larger dumps manageable.
>
> > > > Changing hexdump's last argument from bool to int is odd.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Think of it as replacing a single boolean with many booleans.
> >
> > I understand it. It's odd.
> >
> > I would rather not have a mixture of true, false, and apparently
> > random collections of bitfields like 0xd or 0b1011 or their
> > equivalent or'd defines.
> >
>
> Where's the mixture? What would you propose instead?
create a hex_dump_to_buffer_ext with a new argument
and a new static inline for the old hex_dump_to_buffer
without modifying the argument list that calls
hex_dump_to_buffer with whatever added argument content
you need.
Something like:
static inline
int hex_dump_to_buffer(const void *buf, size_t len, int rowsize,
int groupsize, char *linebuf, size_t linebuflen,
bool ascii)
{
return hex_dump_to_buffer_ext(buf, len, rowsize, groupsize,
linebuf, linebuflen, ascii, 0);
}
and remove EXPORT_SYMBOL(hex_dump_to_buffer)
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Hexdump Enhancements
On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 09:15 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 09:31 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 12:04 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > > > From: Alastair D'Silva > > > > > > Apologies for the large CC list, it's a heads up for those > > > responsible > > > for subsystems where a prototype change in generic code causes a > > > change > > > in those subsystems. > > > > > > This series enhances hexdump. > > > > Still not a fan of these patches. > > I'm afraid there's not too much action I can take on that, I'm happy to > address specific issues though. > > > > These improve the readability of the dumped data in certain > > > situations > > > (eg. wide terminals are available, many lines of empty bytes exist, > > > etc). I think it's generally overkill for the desired uses. > > Changing hexdump's last argument from bool to int is odd. > > > > Think of it as replacing a single boolean with many booleans. I understand it. It's odd. I would rather not have a mixture of true, false, and apparently random collections of bitfields like 0xd or 0b1011 or their equivalent or'd defines. > There's only a handful of consumers, I don't think there is a value-add > in creating more wrappers vs updating the existing callers. Perhaps more reason not to modify the existing api. ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Hexdump Enhancements
On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 12:04 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > From: Alastair D'Silva > > Apologies for the large CC list, it's a heads up for those responsible > for subsystems where a prototype change in generic code causes a change > in those subsystems. > > This series enhances hexdump. Still not a fan of these patches. > These improve the readability of the dumped data in certain situations > (eg. wide terminals are available, many lines of empty bytes exist, etc). Changing hexdump's last argument from bool to int is odd. Perhaps a new function should be added instead of changing the existing hexdump. > The default behaviour of hexdump is unchanged, however, the prototype > for hex_dump_to_buffer() has changed, and print_hex_dump() has been > renamed to print_hex_dump_ext(), with a wrapper replacing it for > compatibility with existing code, which would have been too invasive to > change. > > Hexdump selftests have be run & confirmed passed. ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
