On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:43 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd(a)kernel.org> wrote:
Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-05-14 15:16:56)
> A number of test features need to do pretty complicated string printing
> where it may not be possible to rely on a single preallocated string
> with parameters.
> So provide a library for constructing the string as you go similar to
> C++'s std::string.
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins(a)google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org>
> Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang(a)deltatee.com>
Is there any reason why we can't use the seqfile API for this? These
both share a similar goal, formatting strings into a buffer to be read
later. Maybe some new APIs would be needed to extract the buffer
differently, but I hope we could share the code.
I can see why you are asking. It seems as though they are trying to do
*similar* things, and it seems possible that we might be able to
extract some common functionality out of seq_file that could replace
this; however, it looks like it would be require a significant
refactoring of seq_file to separate out the file system specific bits
from the more general stringbuilder functionality.
In my opinion, a refactoring like this makes no sense in this
patchset; it probably belongs in its own patchset (preferably as a
follow on). I also am not sure if the FS people would appreciate
indirection that serves them no benefit, but I can ask if you like.
If it can't be used, can you please add the reasoning to the