On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 09:58 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On Wednesday, July 09, 2014 at 11:21:08 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 22:39 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > The above function looks like almost verbatim copy of print_hex_dump(). > > > The only difference I can spot is that it's calling seq_printf() instead > > > of printk(). Can you not instead generalize print_hex_dump() and based > > > on it's invocation, make it call either seq_printf() or printk() ? > > > > How do you propose doing that given any seq_<foo> call > > requires a struct seq_file * and print_hex_dump needs > > a KERN_<LEVEL>. > > I can imagine a rather nasty way, I can't say I would like it myself tho. The > general idea would be to pull out the entire switch {} statement into a separate > functions , one for printk() and one for seq_printf() cases. Then, have a > generic do_hex_dump() call which would take as an argument a pointer to either > of those functions and a void * to either the seq_file or level . Finally, there > would have to be a wrapper to call the do_hex_dump() with the correct function > pointer and it's associated arg. > > Nasty? Yes ... Ineffective? Most likely. It looks not good idea, yeah. > > Is there an actual value to it? > > Reducing the code duplication, but I wonder if there is a smarter solution than > the horrid one above. I have considered to modify hex_dump_to_buffer() to return how many bytes it actually proceed to the buffer. In that case we can directly print to m->buf like other seq_<foo> calls do. But I still have doubts about it. Any opinion? -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html