[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0903241200200.22830@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>
cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] tracing: add per-event filtering
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:06 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > >
> > > +static ssize_t
> > > +event_filter_read(struct file *filp, char __user *ubuf, size_t cnt,
> > > + loff_t *ppos)
> > > +{
> > > + struct ftrace_event_call *call = filp->private_data;
> > > + struct trace_seq *s;
> > > + int r;
> > > +
> > > + if (*ppos)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + s = kmalloc(sizeof(*s), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!s)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + trace_seq_init(s);
> > > +
> > > + r = filter_print_preds(call->preds, s->buffer);
> >
> > You're not using any of the features of the trace_seq structure.
> > Might as well just allocate your own buffer.
> >
>
> Yeah, it make more sense to use the trace_seq features than do it
> myself. I just posted a patch to do that.
>
> > > + r = simple_read_from_buffer(ubuf, cnt, ppos, s->buffer, r);
> > > +
> > > + kfree(s);
> > > +
> > > + return r;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static ssize_t
> > > +event_filter_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *ubuf, size_t cnt,
> > > + loff_t *ppos)
> > > +{
> > > + struct ftrace_event_call *call = filp->private_data;
> > > + char buf[64], *pbuf = buf;
> > > + struct filter_pred *pred;
> > > + int err;
> > > +
> > > + if (cnt >= sizeof(buf))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + if (copy_from_user(&buf, ubuf, cnt))
> > > + return -EFAULT;
> > > +
> > > + pred = kzalloc(sizeof(*pred), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!pred)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + err = filter_parse(&pbuf, pred);
> > > + if (err < 0) {
> > > + filter_free_pred(pred);
> > > + return err;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (pred->clear) {
> > > + filter_free_preds(call);
> >
> > The above is very confusing. Why are we passing in "call"?
>
> The preds are attached to the call, so it makes sense to me to pass in
> the call. I could just pass in the preds directly, if that makes it
> less confusing...
>
> >
> > > + return cnt;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (filter_add_pred(call, pred)) {
I'm confused because it looks like it is hooked here and not above where
we exit.
-- Steve
> > > + filter_free_pred(pred);
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + *ppos += cnt;
> > > +
> > > + return cnt;
> > > +}
> > > +
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists