Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:31:58 -0500 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] trace: Replace seq_printf by simpler equivalents |
| |
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 21:42:10 +0100 Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
> - seq_printf(m, "\n"); > + seq_puts(m, "\n");
> > @@ -840,7 +840,7 @@ static int probes_seq_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > > for (i = 0; i < tk->tp.nr_args; i++) > seq_printf(m, " %s=%s", tk->tp.args[i].name, tk->tp.args[i].comm); > - seq_printf(m, "\n"); > + seq_puts(m, "\n"); > > return 0; > } > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c > index 33ff6a2..184aec1 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c > @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static int probes_seq_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > for (i = 0; i < tu->tp.nr_args; i++) > seq_printf(m, " %s=%s", tu->tp.args[i].name, tu->tp.args[i].comm); > > - seq_printf(m, "\n"); > + seq_puts(m, "\n");
These can actually be seq_putc(m, '\n');
I saw this because one of them conflicted with a change I already had.
No need to resend, I'll just update them myself. Trivial enough.
-- Steve
> return 0; > } >
| |