On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:57:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:15:23 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Current stacktrace only have the function for console output.
> > page_owner that will be introduced in following patch needs to print
> > the output of stacktrace into the buffer for our own output format
> > so so new function, snprint_stack_trace(), is needed.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +int snprint_stack_trace(char *buf, size_t size,
> > + struct stack_trace *trace, int spaces)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > + unsigned long ip;
> > + int generated;
> > + int total = 0;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(!trace->entries))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < trace->nr_entries; i++) {
> > + ip = trace->entries[i];
> > + generated = snprintf(buf, size, "%*c[<%p>] %pS\n",
> > + 1 + spaces, ' ', (void *) ip, (void *) ip);
> > +
> > + total += generated;
> > +
> > + /* Assume that generated isn't a negative number */
> > + if (generated >= size) {
> > + buf += size;
> > + size = 0;
>
> Seems strange to keep looping around doing nothing. Would it be better
> to `break' here?
generated will be added to total in each iteration even if size is 0.
snprint_stack_trace() could return accurate generated string length
by this looping.
Thanks.
--
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>