Hello Simon,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:17:48AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 05:52:07AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote:
Extract CPU number formatting logic from prepare_extradata() into a new append_cpu_nr() function.
This refactoring improves code organization by isolating CPU number formatting into its own function while reducing the complexity of prepare_extradata().
The change prepares the codebase for the upcoming taskname feature by establishing a consistent pattern for handling sysdata features.
The CPU number formatting logic itself remains unchanged; only its location has moved to improve maintainability.
Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao leitao@debian.org
drivers/net/netconsole.c | 18 +++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/netconsole.c b/drivers/net/netconsole.c index c086e2fe51f874812379e6f89c421d7d32980f91..26ff2ed4de16bce58e9eeaf8b5b362dfaafaca0a 100644 --- a/drivers/net/netconsole.c +++ b/drivers/net/netconsole.c @@ -1117,13 +1117,21 @@ static void populate_configfs_item(struct netconsole_target *nt, init_target_config_group(nt, target_name); } +static int append_cpu_nr(struct netconsole_target *nt, int offset) +{
- /* Append cpu=%d at extradata_complete after userdata str */
- return scnprintf(&nt->extradata_complete[offset],
MAX_EXTRADATA_ENTRY_LEN, " cpu=%u\n",raw_smp_processor_id());+}
/*
- prepare_extradata - append sysdata at extradata_complete in runtime
- @nt: target to send message to
*/ static int prepare_extradata(struct netconsole_target *nt) {
- int sysdata_len, extradata_len;
- int extradata_len;
/* userdata was appended when configfs write helper was called * by update_userdata(). @@ -1133,12 +1141,8 @@ static int prepare_extradata(struct netconsole_target *nt) if (!(nt->sysdata_fields & SYSDATA_CPU_NR)) goto out;
- /* Append cpu=%d at extradata_complete after userdata str */
- sysdata_len = scnprintf(&nt->extradata_complete[nt->userdata_length],
MAX_EXTRADATA_ENTRY_LEN, " cpu=%u\n",raw_smp_processor_id());- extradata_len += sysdata_len;
- if (nt->sysdata_fields & SYSDATA_CPU_NR)
extradata_len += append_cpu_nr(nt, nt->userdata_length);Hi Breno,
As this is the only caller of append_cpu_nr() I'm wondering if it would be nicer if nt was the only argument to append_cpu_nr().
Yes, I can do it. I just kept both functions the same:
static int append_taskname(struct netconsole_target *nt, int offset) static int append_cpu_nr(struct netconsole_target *nt, int offset)
Another option is to use extradata_len as the second argument, instead of nt->userdata_length. That might(?) make the code easier to read? it would look like the following:
extradata_len = nt->userdata_length; if (nt->sysdata_fields & SYSDATA_CPU_NR) extradata_len += append_cpu_nr(nt, extradata_len); if (nt->sysdata_fields & SYSDATA_TASKNAME) extradata_len += append_taskname(nt, extradata_len);
What would you write yourself?
Thank you very much for the review, --breno