On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 23:20:15 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > +#define DECLARE_SEQ_BUF(NAME, SIZE)
> > \
> > + char __ ## NAME ## _buffer[SIZE] = ""; \
> > + struct seq_buf NAME = { .buffer = &__ ## NAME ## _buffer, \
> > + .size = SIZE }
>
> Hmm... Wouldn't be more readable to have it as
>
> #define DECLARE_SEQ_BUF(NAME, SIZE) \
> char __ ## NAME ## _buffer[SIZE] = ""; \
> struct seq_buf NAME = { \
> .buffer = &__ ## NAME ## _buffer, \
> .size = SIZE, \
> }
>
> ?
I agree with the above.
>
> ...
>
> > +static inline char *seq_buf_str(struct seq_buf *s)
> > {
> > if (WARN_ON(s->size == 0))
> > - return;
> > + return "";
>
> I'm wondering why it's a problem to have an empty string?
Not sure what you mean? With s->size = 0, s->buffer may not have been
assigned. That shouldn't be the case, but it does make it more robust.
-- Steve
>
> > if (seq_buf_buffer_left(s))
> > s->buffer[s->len] = 0;
> > else
> > s->buffer[s->size - 1] = 0;
> > +
> > + return s->buffer;
> > }
>
