On 09/12/2013 08:33 AM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Chen Gang wrote: > >>> Why? It can just store the string into the buffer pointed to by the >>> char *buffer and terminate it appropriately while taking care that it >>> doesn't exceed maxlen. Why does the caller need to know the number of >>> bytes written? If it really does, you could just do strlen(buffer). >>> >>> If there's a real reason for it, then that's fine, I just think it can be >>> made to always succeed and never return < 0. (And why is nobody checking >>> the return value today if it's so necessary?) >>> >> >> For common printing functions: sprintf(), snprintf(), scnprintf(). >> >> For some of specific printing functions: drivers/usb/host/uhci-debug.c. >> >> at least they can let caller easy use. >> > > Nobody needs mpol_to_str() to return the number of characters written, > period. It's one of the most trivial functions you're going to see in the > mempolicy code, it takes a pointer to a buffer and it stores characters to > it for display. Nobody is going to use it for anything else. Let's not > overcomplicate this trivial function. > Most of tools functions in kernel are return a value to let the caller easy use, e.g. memset() which much simpler than our case, still return a value. >>> Nobody is using mpol_to_str() to determine if a mempolicy mode is valid :) >>> If the struct mempolicy really has a bad mode, then just store "unknown" >>> or store a 0. If maxlen is insufficient for the longest possible string >>> stored by mpol_to_str(), then it should be a compile-time error. >>> >>> >> >> Hmm... what you said sounds reasonable if mpol_to_str() is a normal >> static funciton (only used within a file). >> >> For extern function, callee (inside) can not assume anything of caller >> (outside) beyond the interface. So if failure occurs, better to report >> to caller only, and let caller to check what to do next. >> > > Are you just preaching about the best practices of software engineering? > mpol_to_str() should never fail at runtime, plain and simple. If somebody > introduces a new mode and doesn't update it to print correctly, let's not > fail the read(). Let's just print "unknown". And if someone passes too > small of a buffer, break it at compile time so it gets noticed and fixed. > For normal static function, that sounds reasonable. > I guarantee you that any kernel developer who writes code to call > mpol_to_str() will be happy it never fails at runtime. Really. > > Hmm... for extern function, at present, maybe you can guarantee, but may not always in the future. And "Code is mainly for making readers 'happy' (e.g version mergers), not writers". For extern function which more than 50 lines (used by 2 sub-systems), it is strange for readers to find it no return value, also strange to let *BUG_ON() on the extern function's input parameters directly. If one caller wants to treat failure as BUG, can "*BUG_ON(mpol_to_str() < 0)", that will be more clearer to all members (need this patch do like it? :-) ). BTW: in my opinion, within mpol_to_str(), the VM_BUG_ON() need be replaced by returning -EINVAL. Thanks. -- Chen Gang -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>