[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58243003fdba1c06d90576fcfec5096012318a27.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2025 13:30:38 +0200
From: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>
To: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven
Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Tomas Glozar <tglozar@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <jlelli@...hat.com>, Clark
Williams <williams@...hat.com>, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/20] rv: Unify DA event handling functions across
monitor types
On Thu, 2025-10-02 at 11:14 +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com> writes:
> > +/*
> > + * da_get_task - return the task associated to the monitor
> > + */
> > +static inline struct task_struct *da_get_task(struct da_monitor *da_mon)
> > +{
> > + return container_of(da_mon, struct task_struct,
> > rv[task_mon_slot].da_mon);
> > +}
>
> This function is not used? Maybe later in the series, let me keep looking..
Right, this doesn't belong here, I should add it later..
>
> > static inline bool da_handle_start_event(enum events event)
> > {
> > - struct da_monitor *da_mon;
> > -
> > if (!da_monitor_enabled())
> > return 0;
>
> Can't this part be shared between different monitor types?
>
> Same for the other handle functions.
Mmh good point, I left it separate because the per-object monitors (later in the
series) do a bit more before calling the __da_handle_* functions (like some
potential allocation).
But it's probably not a big deal to let them do that in any case, considering
da_monitor_enabled() is false only during teardown or with monitoring off, and
in neither case a superfluous allocation should cause problems.
Thanks,
Gabriele
Powered by blists - more mailing lists