Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> writes: > 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.
It was ftrace's own __print_array, I'll add the info to v2. > >> >> > 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. OK I'll re-spin today. > > Thanks, > > -- Steve -- Alex Bennée -- 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/
