Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 May 2022 11:11:55 -0400 | From | Kent Overstreet <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 00/28] Printbufs (now with more printbufs!) |
| |
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 04:44:20PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu 2022-05-19 13:23:53, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > So there's a lot of new stuff since the first posting: > > > - Printbufs have been broken up into multiple patches that each add distinct > > functionality - this is intended to make it easier to review and to see > > what's used for what > > It is great that it is split. Also it is great to see all the ideas. > But I would really prefer to somehow split it to make it easier > for review and rebasing. > > I see the following "independent" parts: > > 1. Add simple API that allows to replace @len, @buf, @end in vsprintf.c > by @printbuf. I agree that the code looks better and more safe. > > 2. Clean up of printf_spec. It would be great. But I do not like > some parts. For example, si_units, human_readable_units > are not property of the buffer. They are specific for a > particular substring.
Not in conventional usage - these are properties that are set globally when building up a string: consider an -h flag to a userspace utility.
> > 3. New %p(%p) format. It really needs deep thinking. It is a > ticket for potential big troubles. It is one patch that > might be introduced and discussed anytime once we have > the simple buffer API.
It's split out into a separate patch - discuss away!
> 3. Replace seq_buf. Steven Rostedt has to agree with it. Honestly, > I do not see any improvement. The patches mostly do 1:1 replacement > of one API with another.
It was necessary to avoid code duplication, which Christoph didn't like, and seq_buf wasn't quite right for what I was trying to do and Steven didn't want to change it. (read_pos is tracing specific and doesn't have anything to do with printing, some of the semantics had to be tweaked to support snprintf, and the name was wrong... :)
> 4. Heap allocated buffer. I am not sure if it is really needed. > The patchset adds 3 users. IMHO, small static buffer would be > perfectly fine for 2 of them. I personally do not like the error > handling and the need to call exit. > > 5. All the fancy stuff (pr_tab(), pr_string_option()). The patchset > does not add any user for them.
Heap allocated buffers and tabstops: these are things that I've been using in bcachefs, and have quickly become necessities - I included them because I think others will soon find them valuable (e.g. /proc has a lot of files that would be more readable if formatted with tabstops).
pr_string_option(): this isn't anything really new, we've got a lot of pretty printers and string helpers of this nature that need to be better organized and given a common calling convention, I included this as code I've got that's been useful and I think does it cleanly. I have more future plans for pretty printer cleanup.
| |