Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v15 10/23] tracing: Add hist trigger 'execname' modifier | From | Tom Zanussi <> | Date | Wed, 02 Mar 2016 13:51:57 -0600 |
| |
Hi Steve,
On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 12:39 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:01:13 -0600 > Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > +static void hist_trigger_elt_copy(struct tracing_map_elt *to, > > + struct tracing_map_elt *from) > > +{ > > + char *comm_from = from->private_data; > > + char *comm_to = to->private_data; > > + > > + if (comm_from) > > + memcpy(comm_to, comm_from, TASK_COMM_LEN + 1); > > +} > > + > > +static void hist_trigger_elt_init(struct tracing_map_elt *elt) > > +{ > > + char *comm = elt->private_data; > > + > > + if (comm) > > + save_comm(comm, current); > > +} > > + > > +static const struct tracing_map_ops hist_trigger_ops = { > > + .elt_alloc = hist_trigger_elt_alloc, > > + .elt_copy = hist_trigger_elt_copy, > > + .elt_free = hist_trigger_elt_free, > > + .elt_init = hist_trigger_elt_init, > > These are only used for saving or displaying comm. Wouldn't adding that > in the name be better. Otherwise it looks like they are more generic. I > find that dangerous, especially since they just assume that the > private_data is a string. > > What about hist_trigger_elt_comm_* > > ?
Yeah, I think that makes it clearer - I'll rename those to be more explicit.
Thanks,
Tom
> > -- Steve > > > +}; > > + > > static void destroy_hist_field(struct hist_field *hist_field) > > { > > kfree(hist_field); > > @@ -399,6 +467,9 @@ static int create_key_field(struct hist_trigger_data *hist_data, > > flags |= HIST_FIELD_FL_SYM; > > else if (strcmp(field_str, "sym-offset") == 0) > > flags |= HIST_FIELD_FL_SYM_OFFSET; > > + else if ((strcmp(field_str, "execname") == 0) && > > + (strcmp(field_name, "common_pid") == 0)) > > + flags |= HIST_FIELD_FL_EXECNAME; > > else { > > ret = -EINVAL; > > goto out;
| |