Hi Steve,
On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 07:52:37AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:54:33 +0900
> Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> > > + if (isalpha(*ptr) || *ptr == '_') {
> > > + if (strncmp(map->enum_string, ptr, len) == 0 &&
> > > + !isalnum(ptr[len]) && ptr[len] != '_') {
> > > + ptr = enum_replace(ptr, map, len);
> > > + /* Hmm, enum string smaller than value */
> > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!ptr))
> > > + return;
> > > + /*
> > > + * No need to decrement here, as enum_replace()
> > > + * returns the pointer to the character passed
> > > + * the enum, and two enums can not be placed
> > > + * back to back without something in between.
> > > + * We can skip that something in between.
> > > + */
> > > + continue;
> >
> > Maybe I'm becoming a bit paranoid, what I worried was like this:
> >
> > ENUM1\"ENUM2\"
> >
> > In this case, it skips the backslash and makes quotation effective..
>
> The only time a backslash is OK is if it's in a quote, where we do not
> process enums there anyway.
>
> The above isn't valid C outside of quotes, so I'm still not worried.
OK
>
> >
> >
> > > + }
> > > + skip_more:
> > > + do {
> > > + ptr++;
> > > + } while (isalnum(*ptr) || *ptr == '_');
> > > + /*
> > > + * If what comes after this variable is a '.' or
> > > + * '->' then we can continue to ignore that string.
> > > + */
> > > + if (*ptr == '.' || (ptr[0] == '-' && ptr[1] == '>')) {
> > > + ptr += *ptr == '.' ? 1 : 2;
> > > + goto skip_more;
> > > + }
> > > + /*
> > > + * Once again, we can skip the delimiter that came
> > > + * after the string.
> > > + */
> > > + continue;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void trace_event_enum_update(struct trace_enum_map **map, int len)
> > > +{
> > > + struct ftrace_event_call *call, *p;
> > > + const char *last_system = NULL;
> > > + int last_i;
> > > + int i;
> > > +
> > > + down_write(&trace_event_sem);
> > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(call, p, &ftrace_events, list) {
> > > + /* events are usually grouped together with systems */
> > > + if (!last_system || call->class->system != last_system) {
> >
> > I think simply checking "call->class->system != last_system" would work.
>
> I think you are correct, but I'm not sure I want to change it. Mainly
> because it's more readable that way. The !last_system is basically the
> "this is first time". Leaving it out may cause people to think it's
> wrong.
>
> But I may change my mind and remove it anyway ;-)
>
> If there's other things wrong with this patch, I may update this too.
>
> Thanks for reviewing.
OK. You can add my Acked-by if you like..
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
