Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-202885-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:06:57 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Masami
 Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers
 <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ftrace: Comment __ftrace_hash_rec_update() and make
 filter_hash bool
Message-ID: <20240605120657.1c8938ee@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20240605101832.09fb4211@gandalf.local.home>
References: <20240604212817.384103202@goodmis.org>
	<20240604212854.725383717@goodmis.org>
	<ZmA6ygUWNPkq0PKV@J2N7QTR9R3>
	<20240605101832.09fb4211@gandalf.local.home>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 10:18:32 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> > > + *
> > > + * @filter_hash: True if for the filter hash is udpated, false for the
> > > + *               notrace hash    
> > 
> > Typo: s/udpated/updated/
> > 
> > ... though I couldn't parse this regardless; maybe:
> > 
> > 	@filter_hash: true to update the filter hash, false to update
> > 		      the notrace hash  
> 
> Sure.

Actually, they are both wrong. Because I realized your's was not correct, I
started describing it in more detail and realized it does basically the
same thing (but differently) if filter_hash is set or not. I think it can
be removed completely!

I just tried it. I forced "filter_hash" to always be true, and all the
tests worked just fine. This function is only to update the dyn_ftrace
records when an ops is added or removed. It doesn't matter which filter is
being used, as they are both necessary for the update.

This will make that code a bit cleaner and simpler. Let me go and fix that
first, and then add the documentation on top!

This is what happens when you document your code :-p

This code has been rewritten a few times. When it was first written, which
filter was being changed may have been important. But now it is not.

-- Steve