Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 19:15:22 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, pmladek@suse.com,
        enozhatsky@chromium.org, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk,
        willy@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/34] Printbufs - new data structure for building
 strings
Message-ID: <20220719191522.4002a5fb@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20220620004233.3805-1-kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
References: <20220620004233.3805-1-kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 20:41:59 -0400
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> wrote:

> Core idea: Wouldn't it be nice if we had a common data structure and calling
> convention for outputting strings?

Because seq_buf gives us this already, the cover letter really just needs
to state exactly what the benefit is to replace seq_buf with printbuf (and
why seq_buf can not be simply extended to do some extra features).

I just applied your series and ran the tracing selftests and several of
them failed.

 # cd tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/
 # ./ftracetest

This means that this is not a simple replacement and that there's going to
be regressions with this change. The question is, is the added benefits of
doing the change greater than the fallout of the regressions?

-- Steve