handle xlat styles ioprio

Dmitry V. Levin ldv at altlinux.org
Mon Feb 18 01:37:39 UTC 2019

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 10:23:53AM -0600, shankarapailoor wrote:
> >Why do you handle XLAT_STYLE_VERBOSE as XLAT_STYLE_RAW here?
> Good question. I think I handled both cases the same because I didn't know
> if verbose should print the auxiliary string after the return value. If you
> think it should then I'm ok with leaving it back in.

The auxiliary string is printed along with the return value, so
I'd say it behaves more like XLAT_STYLE_VERBOSE by default.
I don't think XLAT_STYLE_VERBOSE should be less verbose than the default.

> >The check for XLAT_STYLE_RAW seems to be redundant here.
> Sorry but I don't see how it is. If I don't include the check, then under
> XLAT_STYLE_RAW, we will call tprints(sprint_ioprio(tcp->u_arg[2]) after
> printing the raw value which seems wrong.

After the second look it no longer seems redundant.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20190218/e8bbff7a/attachment.bin>

More information about the Strace-devel mailing list