lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] trace-cmd: Add parse error checking target
From
Date
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 20:00 -0700, Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> Add another target 'check-events' which parses all the event formats and
> returns whether there are any issues with the print format strings.
>
> With an error in the format, the return value is 22 (EINVAL) and for
> success, it is 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@google.com>
> ---
> trace-capture.c | 2 +-
> trace-cmd.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> trace-cmd.h | 2 +-
> trace-usage.c | 5 +++++
> trace-util.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 5 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/trace-capture.c b/trace-capture.c
> index 61ff165..5708945 100644
> --- a/trace-capture.c
> +++ b/trace-capture.c
> @@ -1295,7 +1295,7 @@ static void tracing_dialog(struct shark_info *info, const char *tracing)
> /* Send parse warnings to status display */
> trace_dialog_register_alt_warning(vpr_stat);
>
> - pevent = tracecmd_local_events(tracing);
> + tracecmd_local_events(tracing, &pevent);

Ug, please no. I don't see any good reason to move the creation of a
pevent into a pointer than just return it. If you require a different
return code, or (a even better reason) that this may be called without
needing to create a pevent at all, then I can understand this. But
creating an object (sturcture) by passing its address is an anomaly of C
and I like to avoid when possible. Passing an address of a atom value
(int, long) or even maybe a string that is allocated is one thing. But
doing it with a constructor function is just plain ugly.


> trace_dialog_register_alt_warning(NULL);
>
> cap.pevent = pevent;
> diff --git a/trace-cmd.c b/trace-cmd.c
> index bff5bbf..a2b6b91 100644
> --- a/trace-cmd.c
> +++ b/trace-cmd.c
> @@ -158,6 +158,28 @@ int main (int argc, char **argv)
> } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "stack") == 0) {
> trace_stack(argc, argv);
> exit(0);
> + } else if (strcmp(argv[1], "check-events") == 0) {
> + char *tracing;
> + int ret;
> + struct pevent *pevent = NULL;
> +
> + tracing = tracecmd_find_tracing_dir();
> +
> + if (!tracing) {
> + printf("Can not find or mount tracing directory!\n"
> + "Either tracing is not configured for this "
> + "kernel\n"
> + "or you do not have the proper permissions to "
> + "mount the directory");
> + exit(EINVAL);
> + }
> +
> + ret = tracecmd_local_events(tracing, &pevent);
> + if (pevent)
> + pevent_free(pevent);
> +
> + ret ? exit(0) : exit(EINVAL);
> +

And here the code is even uglier. You just free pevent and the ret is
just a boolean! Also, that ?: trick is even uglier.


pevent = tracecmd_local_events(tracing);
if (!pevent)
exit(EINVAL);
pevent_free(pevent);
exit(0);
Is much more readable.

-- Steve






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-25 15:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean