On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 09:51:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 4:59 PM Len Baker <len.baker@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:21:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 7:05 PM Len Baker <len.baker@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > > > > > - char msg[128]; > > > > > > 128 / 4 = 32. So, this buffer is enough to debug print only up to 32 > > > bytes. Hence %*ph replacement won't cut output earlier than requested. > > > > I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to explain. Moreover, > > with the "0x%02X " in the sprintf followed by the strcat, the msg buffer can > > print 128/5 values (25 hex values). > > > > The %*ph replacement can print up to 64 bytes, so I don't see any problem > > here. > > Right. That's what I am trying to say and the hint here is to combine > this part into a phrase in the commit message in the next version of > the patch. Ok, I will update the commit changelog for the next version. > > ... > > > > > + for (j = i + 1; par->init_sequence[j] >= 0; j++); > > > > > > Why is i + 1 initial for the j? You may rather access the 'i + 1 + > > > j'th element in the array... > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > + par->init_sequence[i], j - i - 1, > > > > > > ...and get rid of the ' - i -1' part here. > > > > Yes, it was the first idea but I prefer this method since we save aritmethic > > operations. In other words, if I use what you suggest, the index for > > par->init_sequence is calculated as a "sum" every iteration. But if the > > performance is not an issue and you believe that the above is more clear, I > > have no problem. What do you prefer? > > I prefer my variant and I believe the compilers nowadays are clever > enough to understand this. Ok, understood. Thanks. > Have you tried to compile and compare the real assembly? I will test it. > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko Regards, Len
