linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/18] rtla: Introduce common

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAAq0SU=QWnfQnfKM=YOcBVBh6wuqaFub4kDf5taSv7PCMaOfnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:50:21 -0300
From: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
To: Tomas Glozar <tglozar@...hat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Crystal Wood <crwood@...hat.com>, 
	Ivan Pravdin <ipravdin.official@...il.com>, Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@...hat.com>, 
	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>, Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>, 
	"open list:Real-time Linux Analysis (RTLA) tools" <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:Real-time Linux Analysis (RTLA) tools" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:BPF [MISC]:Keyword:(?:b|_)bpf(?:b|_)" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/18] rtla: Introduce common_restart() helper

On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 10:47 AM Tomas Glozar <tglozar@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> st 7. 1. 2026 v 13:43 odesílatel Wander Lairson Costa
> <wander@...hat.com> napsal:
> > >
> > > The deduplication idea is good, but I find the name of the helper
> > > quite confusing. The main function of the helper is not to restart
> > > tracing, it is to handle a latency threshold overflow - restarting
> > > tracing is only one of possible effects, and one that is only applied
> > > when using --on-threshold continue which is not the most common use
> > > case. Could something like common_handle_stop_tracing() perhaps be
> > > better?
> > >
> >
> > Sure, I will change the name in v3.
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> > > > +enum restart_result {
> > > > +       RESTART_OK,
> > > > +       RESTART_STOP,
> > > > +       RESTART_ERROR = -1,
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > Do we really need a separate return value enum just for this one helper?
> > >
> >
> > If it was success/failure type of return value, we wouldn't need.
> > However, a three state code, I think it is worth for code readiness.
> > Do you have something else in mind?
> >
>
> The main loop can simply use the continue flag, just like in the old
> version, no need to duplicate that information into the return value
> of common_restart().
>

Ok, I will change it in v3.

> Tomas
>