Hi Andrzej, This looks also good, just few questions. On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 05:31:59PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > In case one wants to show stats via debugfs. shall I say it? I'll say it... you can do better with the log here. It's not a typo fix :) > Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@xxxxxxxxx> [...] > +void __ref_tracker_dir_print(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir, > + unsigned int display_limit) > +{ > + struct ostream os = {}; > + > + __ref_tracker_dir_pr_ostream(dir, display_limit, &os); > +} > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__ref_tracker_dir_print); > > void ref_tracker_dir_print(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir, > @@ -114,6 +141,19 @@ void ref_tracker_dir_print(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir, > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(ref_tracker_dir_print); > > +int ref_tracker_dir_snprint(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir, char *buf, size_t size) nit: snprintf is normally referred to its variable parameter counterpart... I would choose a different name... how about ref_tracker_dir_fetch_print()? > +{ > + struct ostream os = { .buf = buf, .size = size }; > + unsigned long flags; > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(&dir->lock, flags); > + __ref_tracker_dir_pr_ostream(dir, 16, &os); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dir->lock, flags); What are you trying to protect with this spinlock? what if the caller has already locked here? do we need a _locked() version? Thanks, Andi > + return os.used; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ref_tracker_dir_snprint); > + > void ref_tracker_dir_exit(struct ref_tracker_dir *dir) > { > struct ref_tracker *tracker, *n; > > -- > 2.34.1