[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1339763129.13377.357.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:25:29 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.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
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 18:04 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > If you need the code to be thread safe, have all errors do:
> >
> > ret = pevent_foo();
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > pevent_strerr_val(ret, buf, buflen);
> >
> >
> > For programs that do not need to be thread safe, then:
> >
> > ret = pevent_foo();
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > pevent_strerr(pevent, buf, buflen);
> >
>
> Do we really need these two? I think having a single API is just
> enough, IMHO.
Hmm, maybe not. I guess I was confused about the need to pass the pevent
into the function. I think we only need the return val. Or is there
other data in the future that you envision will require needing pevent
passed in?
-- Steve
--
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