Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fix bytecount result from printk() | From | Andi Kleen <> | Date | 01 Dec 2005 18:23:15 -0700 |
| |
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> writes:
> From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> > Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:57:32 -0500 > > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 10:55:49AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote: > > > printk() returns a bytecount, which nothing actually appears to use. > > > > We do check it in a few places. > > > > arch/x86_64/kernel/traps.c: i += printk(" "); \ > > arch/x86_64/kernel/traps.c: i += printk(" <%s> ", id); > > arch/x86_64/kernel/traps.c: i += printk(" <EOE> "); > > arch/x86_64/kernel/traps.c: i += printk(" <IRQ> "); > > arch/x86_64/kernel/traps.c: i += printk(" <EOI> "); > > drivers/char/mem.c: ret = printk("%s", tmp); > > Wow, that's amazing. :)
Taking the blame.
> I bet these can easily be removed, and since printk() is such > a core thing, simplifying it should trump whatever benfits > these few call sites have from getting a return byte count.
I used it for linewrapping in the oops output.
Actually I would expect more users from sprintf and snprintf (e.g. common in /proc output to compute the return value of the read) and that is exactly the same code path.
If you do the same grep for sn?printf I bet there will be much more hits.
-Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |