On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 8:55 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 at 10:18, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > [
> >   NOTE: The rust tracepoint code added hooks to the same macros that were
> >   modified in this pull request. The merge has non-trivial conflicts. I
> >   fixed it up in my "for-next" branch in the same repository. That branch
> >   was a merge of this branch into the commit where you pulled the rust
> >   tracepoint code.
>
> I checked my resolution against yours, and I don't think your
> resolution is right.
>
> You didn't check 'cond' on regular rust tracepoints, and you didn't do
> any locking on either kind.
>
> I've pushed out my resolution, and hopefully rust people can actually
> test it. I might just be full of it.
>
> That said, I also think that the "__rust_do_trace_##name" inline
> helper should just be renamed to "__trace_##name", and then the
> regular trace_##name() helper could use that inside the
> static_branch_unlikely() check. Because that seems to be the only real
> thing the "rust" version wants - avoiding the static branch
> infrastructure in favor of whatever rust infrastructure.

The Rust parts look reasonable to me, thanks!

Alice