[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1253961015.12145.120.camel@frodo>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:30:15 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] bkl tracepoints + filter regex support
On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 11:40 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Using globs in string matches most certainly is useful, no question
> about that.
>
> But I had understood from previous communications we were going to have
> a C syntax, and there == is a straight comparison.
>
> If however people have changed their minds (fine with me) and we're now
> going to script like things..
>
> Anyway, a glob in == just means we have to use another operator if we
> ever want to support actual regexes, ~ would then be recommened I think,
> since that's what awk and I think perl do.
I agree that any use of '==' should be a direct match and if you want to
add a glob expression you can use something else. Like what Peter showed
(~) or even better =~ which is what perl uses.
/me runs
;-)
-- Steve
>
> Personally I wouldn't mind things like:
>
> glob_match(string, pattern)
> regex_match(string, pattern)
>
> But everybody involved in this filter stuff needs to agree what
> direction you want to take the language in.
--
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