[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180326123530.66ced6ae@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:35:30 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 06/10] tracepoint: compute num_args at build
time
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:25:07 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com> wrote:
> commit log of patch 6 states:
>
> "for_each_tracepoint_range() api has no users inside the kernel.
> Make it more useful with ability to stop for_each() loop depending
> via callback return value.
> In such form it's used in subsequent patch."
>
> and in patch 7:
>
> +static void *__find_tp(struct tracepoint *tp, void *priv)
> +{
> + char *name = priv;
> +
> + if (!strcmp(tp->name, name))
> + return tp;
> + return NULL;
> +}
> ...
> + struct tracepoint *tp;
> ...
> + tp = for_each_kernel_tracepoint(__find_tp, tp_name);
> + if (!tp)
> + return -ENOENT;
>
> still not obvious?
Please just create a new function called tracepoint_find_by_name(), and
use that. I don't see any benefit in using a for_each* function for
such a simple routine. Not to mention, you then don't need to know the
internals of a tracepoint in kernel/bpf/syscall.c.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists