On Wed, 16 May 2018 07:17:06 +1000
"Tobin C. Harding" <m...@tobin.cc> wrote:
> > > -void get_random_bytes_arch(void *buf, int nbytes)
> > > +int __must_check get_random_bytes_arch(void *buf, int nbytes)
> > > {
> > > char *p = buf;
> > > + int left = nbytes;
> >
> > Just a nit, but I know some kernel devs prefer "upside-down-xmas-tree"
> > style of declarations. Which would make the above:
> >
> > int left = nbytes;
> > char *p = buf;
>
> Super specific coding style and rigorous code cleanliness is a big part
> of why I love kernel dev. Thanks for pointing this one out.
It's a relatively new form, but I like it. It makes the code look "less
messy" ;-) Some devs don't care, others do. This file already breaks
it, so it really is up to you. Like I said, it's "just a nit", not
really important.
>
> While we are on these code lines, whats the typical kernel variable name
> for a loop counter that is going to be counted down? 'left',
> 'remaining', 'to_go', 'still'???
"left" looks good to me.
>
> > >
> > > - trace_get_random_bytes_arch(nbytes, _RET_IP_);
> > > - while (nbytes) {
> > > + trace_get_random_bytes_arch(left, _RET_IP_);
> >
> > Nothing to do with this patch series, but I wonder if we should move
> > the trace event below, and record how much was done.
>
> I don't fully understand trace events, I just left this line in tact
> and hoped for the best :(
Your patch is fine. This could be something to add after your series.
>
> /me adds 'trace events' to list of things to learn more about
Just look at /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events
Or read Documentation/trace/ftrace.{rst,txt}.
-- Steve
