Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANn89iKJpWK9hWLPhfCYNcVUPucpgTf7s_aYv4uiQ=xocmE5WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220928221514.27350-1-yepeilin.cs@gmail.com> <634b1304.c80a0220.cedc6.e007@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <634b1304.c80a0220.cedc6.e007@mx.google.com>
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 15 Oct 2022 13:26:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CANn89iLrKnzYUt-bkXA9pVsviw2+RM3tWO==ZYy-yHR_1Uz+9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/sock: Introduce trace_sk_data_ready()
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc:     cong.wang@bytedance.com, davem@davemloft.net, dsahern@kernel.org,
        kuba@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, peilin.ye@bytedance.com,
        yepeilin.cs@gmail.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 1:07 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:19:34AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Second patch adding the tracing point once in the helper ?
> >
> > Alternatively, why not add the tracepoint directly in the called
> > functions (we have few of them),
> > instead of all call points ?
>
> Why do we want to give implementations of sk_data_ready() freedom
> to not to call this trace_sk_data_ready()?
>
> Thanks.

I proposed an alternative. Choose one, but not the one you do not like :/

The first proposition was to split the patch in a more logical way.

I think we have less sk_data_ready() functions than call sites, so
code size would be smaller,
but this is probably something we care about enough.