On (09/13/18 14:26), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > +
> > +int vpr_line(struct pr_line *pl, const char *fmt, va_list args)
> > +{
> > + struct seq_buf *s = &pl->sb;
> > + int ret, len;
> > +
> > + if (fmt[0] == '\n') {
> > + pr_line_flush(pl);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
>
> You would need to check if fmt[1] == '\0'. But then you would need
> to be careful about a possible buffer overflow. I would personally
> avoid this optimization.
Good call. It was a fast path for pr_cont("\n").
But it made me wondering and I did some grepping
arch/m68k/kernel/traps.c: pr_cont("\n ");
arch/m68k/kernel/traps.c: pr_cont("\n ");
kernel/trace/ftrace.c: pr_cont("\n expected tramp: %lx\n", ip);
Lovely.
It will take us some time.
> > + ret = seq_buf_vprintf(s, fmt, args);
> > +
> > + len = seq_buf_used(s);
> > + if (len && s->buffer[len - 1] == '\n')
> > + pr_line_flush(pl);
>
> This would cause that pr_line_flush() won't be strictly needed.
> Also it would encourage people to use this feature a more
> complicated way (for more lines). Do we really want this?
Not that I see any problems with pr_line_flush(). But can drop it, sure.
pr_line() is a replacement for pr_cont() and as such it's not for multi-line
buffering.
-ss
