From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
To: Jeff Johnson <[email protected]>
Cc: LKML <[email protected]>,
Linux Trace Kernel <[email protected]>,
Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>,
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>,
Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FYI][PATCH] tracing/treewide: Remove second parameter of __assign_str()
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 13:46:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:30:45 -0800
Jeff Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 9:56 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <[email protected]>
> >
> > [
> > This is a treewide change. I will likely re-create this patch again in
> > the second week of the merge window of v6.9 and submit it then. Hoping
> > to keep the conflicts that it will cause to a minimum.
> > ]
> >
> > With the rework of how the __string() handles dynamic strings where it
> > saves off the source string in field in the helper structure[1], the
> > assignment of that value to the trace event field is stored in the helper
> > value and does not need to be passed in again.
>
> Just curious if this could be done piecemeal by first changing the
> macros to be variadic macros which allows you to ignore the extra
> argument. The callers could then be modified in their separate trees.
> And then once all the callers have be merged, the macros could be
> changed to no longer be variadic.
I weighed doing that, but I think ripping off the band-aid is a better
approach. One thing I found is that leaving unused parameters in the macros
can cause bugs itself. I found one case doing my clean up, where an unused
parameter in one of the macros was bogus, and when I made it a used
parameter, it broke the build.
I think for tree-wide changes, the preferred approach is to do one big
patch at once. And since this only affects TRACE_EVENT() macros, it
hopefully would not be too much of a burden (although out of tree users may
suffer from this, but do we care?)
Now one thing I could do is to not remove the parameter, but just add:
WARN_ON_ONCE((src) != __data_offsets->item##_ptr_);
in the __assign_str() macro to make sure that it's still the same that is
assigned. But I'm not sure how useful that is, and still causes burden to
have it. I never really liked the passing of the string in two places to
begin with.
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-23 18:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-23 17:56 [FYI][PATCH] tracing/treewide: Remove second parameter of __assign_str() Steven Rostedt
2024-02-23 18:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-02-23 18:30 ` Jeff Johnson
2024-02-23 18:46 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2024-02-23 19:50 ` Kent Overstreet
2024-02-23 20:03 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-02-23 20:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-03-14 16:57 ` Alison Schofield
2024-03-14 18:34 ` Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox