Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 6 Oct 2020 10:42:17 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] ftrace: replace do_for_each_ftrace_rec() with
 for_ftrace_rec_iter()
Message-ID: <20201006104217.005cec7c@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20200831031104.23322-6-richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>
References: <20200831031104.23322-1-richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>
        <20200831031104.23322-6-richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 11:11:03 +0800
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:

> Now we have two similar infrastructure to iterate ftrace_page and
> dyn_ftrace:
> 
>   * do_for_each_ftrace_rec()
>   * for_ftrace_rec_iter()
> 
> The 2nd one, for_ftrace_rec_iter(), looks more generic, so preserve it
> and replace do_for_each_ftrace_rec() with it.
> 

I also didn't pull in this patch. The reason is that the
for_ftrace_rec_iter() is specific for external usage (for archs to use) and
requires two function calls to do the iterations.

The do_for_each_ftrace_rec() is a faster, light weight version, but for
internal use only.

I rather keep both, as each has their own, but slightly different, use
cases.

-- Steve