On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:17:48PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: > The only caller to this function was getting it wrong. I favoured
What caller? Wrong in what way? > pushing the calculation to as close to the need as possible rather than > fixing the one caller. This seems reasonable, but... > > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> > --- > include/linux/ftrace_event.h | 2 +- > kernel/trace/trace_output.c | 3 ++- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace_event.h b/include/linux/ftrace_event.h > index c674ee8..e6b0262 100644 > --- a/include/linux/ftrace_event.h > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace_event.h > @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ const char *ftrace_print_hex_seq(struct trace_seq *p, > const unsigned char *buf, int len); > > const char *ftrace_print_array_seq(struct trace_seq *p, > - const void *buf, int buf_len, > + const void *buf, int len, How is the name "len" less confusing than "buf_len"? I suggest matching the name to the equivalent argument of the __print_array macro -- i.e., "count". Cheers ---Dave [...] -- 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/
