[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ehpj6hic.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:02:51 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tools lib traceevent: Introduce pevent_strerror
Hi,
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:01:54 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 16:42 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> +int pevent_strerror(struct pevent *pevent, enum pevent_errno errnum,
>> + char *buf, size_t buflen)
>
> Hmm, actually I wonder if we should put the error into the pevent
> structure. Then we wouldn't even need to waste time to pass the data
> through.
>
> That is, you can simply do:
>
> ret = pevent_foo();
> if (ret < 0) {
> pevent_strerr(pevent, buf, buflen);
> printf("%s\n", buf);
> }
>
> Perhaps even include a pevent_perror(), to just do:
>
> if (ret < 0) {
> pevent_perror(pevent);
> return ret;
> }
>
I thought something like this, but worried about the thread-safety. What
about if more than one thread call pevent functions for a same pevent
concurrently? Should we make the pevent->errno TLS?
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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