On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:57:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:15:23 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Current stacktrace only have the function for console output. > > page_owner that will be introduced in following patch needs to print > > the output of stacktrace into the buffer for our own output format > > so so new function, snprint_stack_trace(), is needed. > > > > ... > > > > +int snprint_stack_trace(char *buf, size_t size, > > + struct stack_trace *trace, int spaces) > > +{ > > + int i; > > + unsigned long ip; > > + int generated; > > + int total = 0; > > + > > + if (WARN_ON(!trace->entries)) > > + return 0; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < trace->nr_entries; i++) { > > + ip = trace->entries[i]; > > + generated = snprintf(buf, size, "%*c[<%p>] %pS\n", > > + 1 + spaces, ' ', (void *) ip, (void *) ip); > > + > > + total += generated; > > + > > + /* Assume that generated isn't a negative number */ > > + if (generated >= size) { > > + buf += size; > > + size = 0; > > Seems strange to keep looping around doing nothing. Would it be better > to `break' here?
generated will be added to total in each iteration even if size is 0. snprint_stack_trace() could return accurate generated string length by this looping. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
