[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150413134141.GF3200@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:41:41 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] tools lib traceevent: Honor operator priority
Em Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 02:36:16PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> Currently it ignores operator priority and just sets processed args as a
> right operand. But it could result in priority inversion in case that
> the right operand is also a operator arg and its priority is lower.
>
> For example, following print format is from new kmem events.
>
> "page=%p", REC->pfn != -1UL ? (((struct page *)(0xffffea0000000000UL)) + (REC->pfn)) : ((void *)0)
>
> But this was treated as below:
>
> REC->pfn != ((null - 1UL) ? ((struct page *)0xffffea0000000000UL + REC->pfn) : (void *) 0)
>
> In this case, the right arg was '?' operator which has lower priority.
> But it just sets the whole arg so making the output confusing - page was
> always 0 or 1 since that's the result of logical operation.
>
> With this patch, it can handle it properly like following:
>
> ((REC->pfn != (null - 1UL)) ? ((struct page *)0xffffea0000000000UL + REC->pfn) : (void *) 0)
And this one already went upstream.
- Arnaldo
--
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