On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 01:40:15 -0400 Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So I'm honestly not super eager to start modifying tricky arch code that I can't > test, and digging into what looked like non trivial interactions between the way > the traceing code using seq_buf (naturally, given that's where it originates). Yes, seq_buf came from the tracing system but was to be used in a more broader way. I had originally pushed trace_seq into the lib directory, but Andrew Morton said it was too specific to tracing. Thus, I gutted the generic parts out of it and created seq_buf, which looks to be something that you could use. I had patches to convert seq_file to it, but ran out of time. I probably can pull them out of the closet and start that again. > > Now yes, I _could_ do a wholesale conversion of seq_buf to printbuf and delete > that code, but doing that job right, to be confident that I'm not introducing > bugs, is going to take more time than I really want to invest right now. I > really don't like to play fast and loose with that stuff. I would be happy to work with you to convert to seq_buf. If there's something missing from it, I can help you change it so that it doesn't cause any regressions with the tracing subsystem. This is how open source programming is suppose to work ;-) -- Steve
