On Wed, 2025-07-16 at 15:08 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > - if (config_has_id && (config_my_pid == id)) > > > > > > + if (config_my_pid && config_has_id && > > > > > > (config_my_pid == id)) > > > > > > But should we then not write: > > > > > > if (config_has_id && (config_my_pid == id)) > > > > Sorry, got a bit confused, I flipped the two while describing: > > * -s shows traces from RV but skips from pid-0 (unintended) > > * omitting -s skips events from RV (correct) > > > > If we are running a per-task monitor config_has_id is always true, > > we pass -s, > > which makes config_my_pid = 0 (intended /not/ to skip RV). > > Now when we are about to trace an event from idle (id=0), we skip > > it, although > > we really shouldn't. > > That's why we also needs to check for config_my_pid not being 0. > > > > Does it make sense? > > Sorta, but would it not make sense to use has_pid := -1 for the > invalid case, instead of 0, which is a valid pid?
Yeah that's another option, I reckon even cleaner since it's currently misleading..
