On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 8:12 AM Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:54:22 +0200 > > Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This feels really fragile, could you please at least add a comment > > > that points out that this is basically an extension of > > > sched_process_template, and that it should remain a subset of it, > > > or something to that end? > > > > Is there any dependency on this? > > > > I don't know of any other dependency to why this was a template other than > > to save memory. > > Uhm, to state the obvious: to not replicate the same definitions over > and over again three times times, for 3 scheduler tracepoints that > share the record format? > > Removing just a single sched_process_template use bloats the source and > adds in potential fragility: > > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > So my request is to please at least add a comment that points the > reader to the shared record format between sched_process_exit and the > other two tracepoints.
Sounds good, no problem. I'll send a follow up patch which Andrew can fold, if he prefers. > > Thanks, > > Ingo
