On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 09:15 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 09:31 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 12:04 +1000, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > > > From: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Apologies for the large CC list, it's a heads up for those > > > responsible > > > for subsystems where a prototype change in generic code causes a > > > change > > > in those subsystems. > > > > > > This series enhances hexdump. > > > > Still not a fan of these patches. > > I'm afraid there's not too much action I can take on that, I'm happy to > address specific issues though. > > > > These improve the readability of the dumped data in certain > > > situations > > > (eg. wide terminals are available, many lines of empty bytes exist, > > > etc). I think it's generally overkill for the desired uses. > > Changing hexdump's last argument from bool to int is odd. > > > > Think of it as replacing a single boolean with many booleans. I understand it. It's odd. I would rather not have a mixture of true, false, and apparently random collections of bitfields like 0xd or 0b1011 or their equivalent or'd defines. > There's only a handful of consumers, I don't think there is a value-add > in creating more wrappers vs updating the existing callers. Perhaps more reason not to modify the existing api.
