Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:16:34 +0000 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ipc: Remove uses of return value of seq_printf/seq_puts |
| |
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:52:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:44:48 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > > These functions are soon going to return void > > That's news to me. > > > so remove the > > return value uses. > > > > Convert the return value to test seq_has_overflowed() instead. > > Why not make seq_printf() return seq_has_overflowed()?
Because we are getting well-meaning folks who try to check that return value, again and again, getting it wrong every time. Typical idiocies: * return some kind of error out of ->show() on overflows. Pointless *and* wrong - only hard errors (== fail read(2) with that) should be reported that way; the caller does detect overflow and retires with bigger buffer just fine. * keep checking it after every sodding call of seq_...(), screwing the cleanups up more often than not. Pointless, unless you are doing some seriously expensive calculations to produce something you are going to print. seq_...() are no-ops in case when overflow has already happened.
seq_had_overflowed() is only for situations when you really want to skip a serious amount of work generating the data that would end up being discarded and recalculated again when the caller grabs a bigger buffer and calls you again. And more often than not it's an indication of ->show() trying to do the work of iterator - e.g. when you have single_open() with ->show() printing the entire hash table of some sort all in one record.
Most of the time checking return value of seq_...() is better replaced with not doing that. And "must check return value and Do Something(tm)" is too strong habit for enough people to cause recurring trouble.
|  |