On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 01:16 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > > 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?
>
> Andrew was worried about all the "current" duplication, IIRC. It is in
> the mail thread somewhere. And one condition in printk is price worth paying.
> Pavel
Hi Pavel.
I'm not nacking this, just stating my view.
I believe I showed how many uses of vsprintf w/ current
there are. Passing NULL vs passing current as the %pT
argument is I think a negligible overall size delta too.
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/
