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>
 <a5e96ac9-f188-a9df-3eac-624002031e21@redhat.com>
 <20210604121802.192caa07@oasis.local.home>
From:   Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <59726959-bc86-8760-580d-3d4ceee45dad@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 18:34:02 +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: <20210604121802.192caa07@oasis.local.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/4/21 6:18 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 18:05:06 +0200
> Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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?
> 
> I don't think the overall idea is bad, if it is what I think you are
> doing. I just don't believe you articulated what you are doing.

I see!

> It has nothing to do with 64 bit reads and writes, but instead has to
> do with reading and writing values that depend on each other for what
> is acceptable.

yeah, that is a better (starting point for an) explanation.

> Perhaps have it called trace_min_max_write() and trace_min_max_read(),
> and document what it is used for.

I will do that!

-- Daniel

> -- Steve
>