On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:11:44 +0200 Alexander Potapenko <gli...@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:54 PM Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:06 AM Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > > > wrote: > > > > - save_stack_trace(&b->stack_trace); > > > > + b->stack_len = stack_trace_save(b->stack_entries, MAX_STACK, > > > > 2); > > > As noted in one of similar patches before, can we have an inline > > > comment to indicate what does this "2" stand for? > > > > Come on. We have gazillion of functions which take numerical constant > > arguments. Should we add comments to all of them? > Ok, sorry. I might not be familiar enough with the kernel style guide. It is a legitimate complaint but not for this series. I only complain about hard coded constants when they are added. That "2" was not added by this series. This patch set is a clean up of the stack tracing code, not a clean up of removing hard coded constants, or commenting them. The hard coded "2" was there without a comment before this patch series and Thomas is correct to leave it as is for these changes. This patch series should not modify what was already there which is out of scope for the purpose of these changes. A separate clean up patch to the maintainer of the subsystem (dm bufio in this case) is fine. But it's not Thomas's responsibility. -- Steve -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
