Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:21:14 +0800 | From | Li Zefan <> | Subject | Re: [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. :)
| |