lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/13] tracing: Extract calls to trace_define_common_fields()
>>>>> @@ -1131,10 +1127,6 @@ static int kretprobe_event_define_fields(struct ftrace_event_call *event_call)
>>>>> struct kretprobe_trace_entry field;
>>>>> struct trace_probe *tp = (struct trace_probe *)event_call->data;
>>>>>
>>>>> - ret = trace_define_common_fields(event_call);
>>>>> - if (!ret)
>>>>> - return ret;
>>>>> -
>>>>> DEFINE_FIELD(unsigned long, func, FIELD_STRING_FUNC, 0);
>>>>> DEFINE_FIELD(unsigned long, ret_ip, FIELD_STRING_RETIP, 0);
>>>>> DEFINE_FIELD(int, nargs, FIELD_STRING_NARGS, 1);
>>>> "if (!ret)" is wrong. trace_define_common_fields() returns zero when success.
>>>> So "unsigned long, func", "unsigned long, ret_ip" ...etc are NOT "defined"
>>>> and filters can not be applied for trace_kprobe.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>
>>> Oh right!
>>>
>>> Ok, I'm queueing this one for the tracing fixes.
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>> This patch has dependency on the previous patch..So can you queue
>> all other patches and send a pull request to Ingo? We're still
>> in the early merge window, so those patches should be fine for
>> .33.
>>
>> And as this patch fixes a bug "acidentally", the changelog
>> needs a bit revision.
>
> The problem is that we can't know in advance Linus will take
> a second round of tracing features in this merge window.
>
> I'd rather be careful and keep separating tracing fixes and
> tracing features.
>
> I'm preparing a separate fix.
>

But there is no functionality change or new feature in this
patchset, all are cleanups and fixes.

That said, I don't mind how you separate them. :)



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-08 09:23    [W:0.098 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site