[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180726142520.1b5f7c25@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:25:20 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Artem Savkov <asavkov@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/kprobes: Simplify the logic of
enable_trace_kprobe()
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:43:52 -0500
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:11:52PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > [ Note this is applied on top of the other patch to quiet gcc ]
> >
> > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> >
> > The function enable_trace_kprobe() performs slightly differently if the file
> > parameter is passed in as NULL on non-NULL. Instead of checking file twice,
> > move the code between the two tests into a static inline helper function to
> > make the code easier to follow.
> >
> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180725224728.7b1d5db2@vmware.local.home
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>
> The enable_probe() name is a bit confusing, since it's not clear what
> the difference is between enable_probe() and enable_trace_kprobe()
> without looking at the code.
Yeah, I didn't like that name either.
>
> Maybe call it __enable_trace_kprobe()?
Hmm, that may work.
>
> Otherwise it's a definite improvement.
>
> Reviewed-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
>
Thanks,
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists