[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230811134631.3c0c0702@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 13:46:31 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Chuang Wang <nashuiliang@...il.com>,
"Tzvetomir Stoyanov (VMware)" <tz.stoyanov@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/eprobe: Iterate trace_eprobe directly
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:51:02 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 19:32:04 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:25:23 +0800
> > Chuang Wang <nashuiliang@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Refer to the description in [1], we can skip "container_of()" following
> > > "list_for_each_entry()" by using "list_for_each_entry()" with
> > > "struct trace_eprobe" and "tp.list".
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wjakjw6-rDzDDBsuMoDCqd+9ogifR_EE1F0K-jYek1CdA@mail.gmail.com/
> > >
> >
> > Good point. BTW, it is better to have 'for_each_eprobe(ep)' if it repeats 3 times.
>
> Wait, it is for each trace_eprobe on the trace_probe.
>
> #define for_each_trace_eprobe_on_trace_probe(ep, _tp)
> list_for_each_entry(ep, trace_probe_probe_list(_tp), tp.list)
>
Do we need it so verbose? Why can't it just be:
#define for_each_trace_eprobe(ep, tp)
If you are worried about consistency with the for_each_trace_kprobe() then let's call it:
#define for_each_trace_point_eprobe(ep, tp);
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists