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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 5/9] tracing/trace: Add a generic function to
 read/write u64 values from tracefs
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Kate Carcia <kcarcia@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
        Clark Willaims <williams@redhat.com>,
        John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1621024265.git.bristot@redhat.com>
 <c585e3316f49c9e33acc79452588fc26ce11dfa4.1621024265.git.bristot@redhat.com>
 <20210603172244.6d2a6059@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <a5e96ac9-f188-a9df-3eac-624002031e21@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 18:05:06 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210603172244.6d2a6059@gandalf.local.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/3/21 11:22 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2021 22:51:14 +0200
> Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Provides a generic read and write implementation to save/read u64 values
>> from a file on tracefs. The trace_ull_config structure defines where to
>> read/write the value, the min and the max acceptable values, and a lock
>> to protect the write.
> 
> This states what the patch is doing, but does not say why it is doing it.

Yeah...

>>
>> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
>> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>> Cc: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
>> Cc: Clark Willaims <williams@redhat.com>
>> Cc: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
>> Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/trace/trace.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  kernel/trace/trace.h | 19 ++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 106 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
>> index 560e4c8d3825..b4cd89010813 100644
>> --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
>> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
>> @@ -7516,6 +7516,93 @@ static const struct file_operations snapshot_raw_fops = {
>>  
>>  #endif /* CONFIG_TRACER_SNAPSHOT */
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * trace_ull_config_write - Generic write function to save u64 value
> 
> 
> That is a horrible name. What the hell is the "config"?
> 
>> + * @filp: The active open file structure
>> + * @ubuf: The userspace provided buffer to read value into
>> + * @cnt: The maximum number of bytes to read
>> + * @ppos: The current "file" position
>> + *
>> + * This function provides a generic write implementation to save u64 values
>> + * from a file on tracefs. The filp->private_data must point to a
>> + * trace_ull_config structure that defines where to write the value, the
>> + * min and the max acceptable values, and a lock to protect the write.
> 
> This doesn't seem to be a generic way to save 64 bit values (which I still
> don't understand, because unsigned long long should work too). But it looks
> like the rational is for having some kind of generic way to read 64 bit
> values giving them a min and a max.
> 
> I see this is used later, but this patch needs to be rewritten. It makes no
> sense.

The reason for this patch is that hwlat, osnoise, and timerlat have "u64 config"
options that are read/write via tracefs "files." In the previous version, I had
multiple functions doing basically the same thing:

A write function that:
	read a u64 from user-space
	get a lock,
	check for min/max acceptable values
		save the value
	release the lock.

and a read function that:
	write the config value to the "read" buffer.

And so, I tried to come up with a way to avoid code duplication.

question: are only the names that are bad? (I agree that they are bad) or do you
think that the overall idea is bad? :-)

Suggestions?

-- Daniel

> -- Steve