On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:22:02 +0100 Dave P Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com> wrote:
> 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? Yes, please add that info to the change log. > > > 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". I agree, please change the variable name to "count", that will make more sense. Thanks, -- Steve -- 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/
