Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Nov 2020 10:20:00 +0800 | From | Leo Yan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 06/22] perf arm-spe: Refactor printing string to buffer |
| |
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 03:01:27PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 05:58:27PM +0000, Dave Martin escreveu: > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 05:39:22PM +0000, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > Em Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 03:45:23PM +0000, Andr� Przywara escreveu: > > > > On 11/11/2020 15:35, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > Isn't this 'ret +=' ? Otherwise if any of these arm_spe_pkt_snprintf() > > > > > calls are made the previous 'ret' value is simply discarded. Can you > > > > > clarify this? > > > > > ret is the same as err. If err is negative (from previous calls), we > > > > return that straight away, so it does nothing but propagating the error. > > > > Usually the return of a snprintf is used to account for buffer space, ok > > > I'll have to read it, which I shouldn't as snprintf has a well defined > > > meaning... > > > > Ok, now that I look at it, I realize it is not a snprintf() routine, but > > > something with different semantics, that will look at a pointer to an > > > integer and then do nothing if it comes with some error, etc, confusing > > > :-/ > > > Would you be happier if the function were renamed? > > > Originally we were aiming for snprintf() semantics, but this still > > spawns a lot of boilerplate code and encourages mistakes in the local > > caller here -- hence the current sticky error approach. > > > So maybe the name should now be less "snprintf"-like. > > Please, its important to stick to semantics for such well known type of > routines, helps reviewing, etc.
My bad, will change the function name to arm_spe_pkt_out_string().
> I'll keep the series up to that point and will run my build tests, then > push it publicly to acme/perf/core and you can go from there, ok?
Will follow up and rebase patches for next version.
> I've changed the BIT() to BIT_ULL() as Andre suggested and I'm testing > it again.
I worry that consumed your (Arnaldo/Andre/Dave) much time, but very appreciate you guy's helping.
Thanks, Leo
| |