On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 4:59 PM Len Baker [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 11:21:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 7:05 PM Len Baker [off-list ref] wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

-       char msg[128];

128 / 4 = 32. So, this buffer is enough to debug print only up to 32
bytes. Hence %*ph replacement won't cut output earlier than requested.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to explain. Moreover,
with the "0x%02X " in the sprintf followed by the strcat, the msg buffer can
print 128/5 values (25 hex values).

The %*ph replacement can print up to 64 bytes, so I don't see any problem
here.

Right. That's what I am trying to say and the hint here is to combine
this part into a phrase in the commit message in the next version of
the patch.

...

quoted

quoted

+                       for (j = i + 1; par->init_sequence[j] >= 0; j++);

Why is i + 1 initial for the j? You may rather access the 'i + 1 +
j'th element in the array...

...

quoted

+                                     par->init_sequence[i], j - i - 1,

...and get rid of the ' - i -1' part here.

Yes, it was the first idea but I prefer this method since we save aritmethic
operations. In other words, if I use what you suggest, the index for
par->init_sequence is calculated as a "sum" every iteration. But if the
performance is not an issue and you believe that the above is more clear, I
have no problem. What do you prefer?

I prefer my variant and I believe the compilers nowadays are clever
enough to understand this. Have you tried to compile and compare the
real assembly?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko