[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANN689E_uE3MosPqVJwG71Trwo15CGNJB2H5+U_Gg47FtPLbxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 00:22:21 -0700
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Chinwen Chang <chinwen.chang@...iatek.com>,
Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tracing: support "bool" type in synthetic trace events
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:44 AM Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com> wrote:
> It's common [1] to define tracepoint fields as "bool" when they contain
> a true / false value. Currently, defining a synthetic event with a
> "bool" field yields EINVAL. It's possible to work around this by using
> e.g. u8 (assuming sizeof(bool) is 1, and bool is unsigned; if either of
> these properties don't match, you get EINVAL [2]).
>
> Supporting "bool" explicitly makes hooking this up easier and more
> portable for userspace.
Acked-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Looks fine to me, but you really want to get Steven's opinion over mine here :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists