MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211120112738.45980-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com> <20211120112738.45980-5-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
 <20211129110140.733475f3@gandalf.local.home> <CALOAHbB-2ESG0QgESN_b=bXzESbq+UBP-dqttirKnt1c9TZHZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211130092240.312f68a4@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20211130092240.312f68a4@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Nov 2021 23:53:30 +0800
Message-ID: <CALOAHbB6oTNpRUHvgMaH+kxJn7Fr7zE2bkvkniPFsPzH-SuHjA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] fs/binfmt_elf: replace open-coded string copy with get_task_comm
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-perf-use." <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
        Michal Miroslaw <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:22 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 11:01:27 +0800
> Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are three options,
> > - option 1
> >   comment on all the hard-coded 16 to explain why it is hard-coded
> > - option 2
> >   replace the hard-coded 16 that can be replaced and comment on the
> > others which can't be replaced.
> > - option 3
> >    replace the hard-coded 16 that can be replaced and specifically
> > define TASK_COMM_LEN_16 in other files which can't include
> > linux/sched.h.
> >
> > Which one do you prefer ?
> >
>
> Option 3. Since TASK_COMM_LEN_16 is, by it's name, already hard coded to
> 16, it doesn't really matter if you define it in more than one location.
>
> Or we could define it in another header that include/sched.h can include.
>
> The idea of having TASK_COMM_LEN_16 is to easily grep for it, and also know
> exactly what it is used for when people see it being used.
>

I will send a separate patch (or patchset) to replace all the old
hard-coded 16 with TASK_COMM_LEN_16 based on the -mm tree.

--
Thanks
Yafang