[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091208081657.GG4989@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:16:58 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] tracing: Extract calls to
trace_define_common_fields()
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 04:03:58PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> >>> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
> >>> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
> >>> @@ -1113,10 +1113,6 @@ static int kprobe_event_define_fields(struct ftrace_event_call *event_call)
> >>> struct kprobe_trace_entry field;
> >>> struct trace_probe *tp = (struct trace_probe *)event_call->data;
> >>>
> >>> - ret = trace_define_common_fields(event_call);
> >>> - if (!ret)
> >>> - return ret;
> >>> -
> >>> DEFINE_FIELD(unsigned long, ip, FIELD_STRING_IP, 0);
> >>> DEFINE_FIELD(int, nargs, FIELD_STRING_NARGS, 1);
> >>> /* Set argument names as fields */
> >>> @@ -1131,10 +1127,6 @@ static int kretprobe_event_define_fields(struct ftrace_event_call *event_call)
> >>> struct kretprobe_trace_entry field;
> >>> struct trace_probe *tp = (struct trace_probe *)event_call->data;
> >>>
> >>> - ret = trace_define_common_fields(event_call);
> >>> - if (!ret)
> >>> - return ret;
> >>> -
> >>> DEFINE_FIELD(unsigned long, func, FIELD_STRING_FUNC, 0);
> >>> DEFINE_FIELD(unsigned long, ret_ip, FIELD_STRING_RETIP, 0);
> >>> DEFINE_FIELD(int, nargs, FIELD_STRING_NARGS, 1);
> >> "if (!ret)" is wrong. trace_define_common_fields() returns zero when success.
> >> So "unsigned long, func", "unsigned long, ret_ip" ...etc are NOT "defined"
> >> and filters can not be applied for trace_kprobe.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> >>
> >
> > Oh right!
> >
> > Ok, I'm queueing this one for the tracing fixes.
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> This patch has dependency on the previous patch..So can you queue
> all other patches and send a pull request to Ingo? We're still
> in the early merge window, so those patches should be fine for
> .33.
>
> And as this patch fixes a bug "acidentally", the changelog
> needs a bit revision.
The problem is that we can't know in advance Linus will take
a second round of tracing features in this merge window.
I'd rather be careful and keep separating tracing fixes and
tracing features.
I'm preparing a separate fix.
--
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