Hello Simon,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:17:48AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 05:52:07AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > Extract CPU number formatting logic from prepare_extradata() into a new
> > append_cpu_nr() function.
> >
> > This refactoring improves code organization by isolating CPU number
> > formatting into its own function while reducing the complexity of
> > prepare_extradata().
> >
> > The change prepares the codebase for the upcoming taskname feature by
> > establishing a consistent pattern for handling sysdata features.
> >
> > The CPU number formatting logic itself remains unchanged; only its
> > location has moved to improve maintainability.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/netconsole.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/netconsole.c b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> > index c086e2fe51f874812379e6f89c421d7d32980f91..26ff2ed4de16bce58e9eeaf8b5b362dfaafaca0a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> > @@ -1117,13 +1117,21 @@ static void populate_configfs_item(struct netconsole_target *nt,
> > init_target_config_group(nt, target_name);
> > }
> >
> > +static int append_cpu_nr(struct netconsole_target *nt, int offset)
> > +{
> > + /* Append cpu=%d at extradata_complete after userdata str */
> > + return scnprintf(&nt->extradata_complete[offset],
> > + MAX_EXTRADATA_ENTRY_LEN, " cpu=%u\n",
> > + raw_smp_processor_id());
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * prepare_extradata - append sysdata at extradata_complete in runtime
> > * @nt: target to send message to
> > */
> > static int prepare_extradata(struct netconsole_target *nt)
> > {
> > - int sysdata_len, extradata_len;
> > + int extradata_len;
> >
> > /* userdata was appended when configfs write helper was called
> > * by update_userdata().
> > @@ -1133,12 +1141,8 @@ static int prepare_extradata(struct netconsole_target *nt)
> > if (!(nt->sysdata_fields & SYSDATA_CPU_NR))
> > goto out;
> >
> > - /* Append cpu=%d at extradata_complete after userdata str */
> > - sysdata_len = scnprintf(&nt->extradata_complete[nt->userdata_length],
> > - MAX_EXTRADATA_ENTRY_LEN, " cpu=%u\n",
> > - raw_smp_processor_id());
> > -
> > - extradata_len += sysdata_len;
> > + if (nt->sysdata_fields & SYSDATA_CPU_NR)
> > + extradata_len += append_cpu_nr(nt, nt->userdata_length);
>
> Hi Breno,
>
> As this is the only caller of append_cpu_nr() I'm wondering
> if it would be nicer if nt was the only argument to append_cpu_nr().
Yes, I can do it. I just kept both functions the same:
static int append_taskname(struct netconsole_target *nt, int offset)
static int append_cpu_nr(struct netconsole_target *nt, int offset)
Another option is to use extradata_len as the second argument, instead
of nt->userdata_length. That might(?) make the code easier to read? it
would look like the following:
extradata_len = nt->userdata_length;
if (nt->sysdata_fields & SYSDATA_CPU_NR)
extradata_len += append_cpu_nr(nt, extradata_len);
if (nt->sysdata_fields & SYSDATA_TASKNAME)
extradata_len += append_taskname(nt, extradata_len);
What would you write yourself?
Thank you very much for the review,
--breno
