Message-ID: <1365520045.25498.62.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] uprobes/tracing: generalize struct
 uprobe_trace_entry_head
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:07:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20130409145054.GA22913@redhat.com>
References: <20130329181548.GA20700@redhat.com>
	 <1365436535.25498.12.camel@gandalf.local.home>
	 <20130409145054.GA22913@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1019
Lines: 39

On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 16:50 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/08, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> OK, will do.
> 
> Or. Instead of enum we can use "bool is_return". So, instead of
> 
> 	if (is_ret_probe(tu))
> 		size = SIZEOF_TRACE_ENTRY(UPROBE_ENTRY_RETPROBE);
> 	else
> 		size = SIZEOF_TRACE_ENTRY(UPROBE_ENTRY_NORMAL);
> 
> we can do
> 
> 	size = SIZEOF_TRACE_ENTRY(is_ret_probe(tu));
> 
> What do you like more?

Which ever is easier ;-)

I just hated the magic "1" and "2". As long as I (or any reviewer) does
not need to go searching for numbers, and can easily figure out what is
going on by looking at the code at hand, I'm happy.

Both the above satisfy that requirement.

Your "is_ret_probe(tu)" may have the added bonus of being less error
prone.

Thanks,

-- Steve


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/