Hi Mr Steven,
I found that you had ever wanted to enhance trace_seq_putmem_hex() to
allow any size input(6d2289f3faa71dcc). Great minds think alike. Your
enhancement will let the function more robust, I think it is very advisable.
Now we only need modify two lines to solve a little flaw, and to let it
more more robust.
Regards,
Yun
On 6/25/21 12:08 PM, Steven Rostedt
wrote:
[Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address] On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 11:41:35 +0800 Yun Zhou <yun.zhou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Steve, Thanks very much for your friendly and clear feedback. Although in current kernel trace_seq_putmem_hex() is only used for single word, I think it should/need support longer data. These are my arguments: 1. The design of double loop is used to process more data. If only supports single word, the inner loop is enough, and the outer loop and the following lines are no longer needed. len -= j / 2; hex[j++] = ' '; 2. The last line above try to split two words/dwords with space. If only supports single word, this strange behavior is hard to understand. 3. If it only supports single word, I think parameter 'len' is redundant.Not really, we have to differentiate char, short, int and long long.4. The comments of both seq_buf_putmem_hex() and trace_seq_putmem_hex() have not indicated the scope of 'len'. 5. If it only supports single word, we need to design a new function to support bigger block of data. I think it is redundant since the current function can perfectly deal with. 6. If follow my patch, it can support any length of data, including the single word. How do you think?First, since you found a real bug, we need to just fix that first (single word as is done currently). Because this needs to go to stable, and what you are explaining above is an enhancement, and not something that needs to be backported. Second, is there a use case? Honestly, I never use the "hex" version of the output. That was only pulled in because it was implemented in the original code that was in the rt patch. I wish we could just get rid of it. Thus, if there's a use case for handling more than one word, then I'm fine with adding that enhancement. But if it is being done just because it can be, then I don't think we should bother. What use case do you have in mind? Anyway, please send just a fix patch, and then we can discuss the merits of this update later. I'd like the fix to be in ASAP. Thanks! -- Steve
