On 10/16/2013 10:07 AM, Chen Gang wrote: > On 10/15/2013 10:47 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:32:41PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >>> >> Yeah, that is a way for it. It seems you (related maintainer) like >>> >> additional fix for it. >>> >> >>> >> Hmm... I will try within this week (although I don't think it is quite >>> >> necessary to me). >>> >> >>> >> :-) >> > >> > If you always ensure that the buffer is big enough, do you really need >> > the checking? >> > > Since they are all normal static functions: Of cause not need length > checking, either don't need return value, either don't need local > variable 'cnt'. >
2 information: - this way (base on nr_cpu_ids, not snprintf) is not extensible. when add new printing contents, need modify maximized length. if acceptable to you, I will go (or do you have any new ideas?). - sorry, I have some internal urgent things to do, so may not finish within this week, and I will finish it in this month (2013-10-31). Thanks. -- Chen Gang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
