On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 06:41 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 23:00 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > Is this really necessary?
> > > No problem. %pT[012] are simply optimization (reducing number of function
> > > arguments for saving text size) and therefore I can drop them.
> > > What about below patch?
> >
> > Hi Tetsuo. Just a nit.
> >
> > > diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
> > []
> > > @@ -1232,7 +1248,7 @@ char *pointer(const char *fmt, char *buf, char
> > > *end, void *ptr,
> > > {
> > > int default_width = 2 * sizeof(void *) + (spec.flags & SPECIAL ? 2 : 0);
> > >
> > > - if (!ptr && *fmt != 'K') {
> > > + if (!ptr && *fmt != 'K' && *fmt != 'T') {
> >
> > I think this new 'T' comparison isn't necessary.
>
> This is needed for allowing comm_name() to accept NULL instead of current.
Yeah, that's what I think isn't necessary.
current is current_thread_info()->task.
I think it's pretty lightweight in all arches and
it'd be simpler/more intelligible to not use NULL.
Andrew? Any opinion? Anyone else?
cheers, Joe
--
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/
