On Fri, 2026-01-23 at 09:19 -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 02:49:59PM +0100, Gabriele Monaco wrote: > > Why fill_tracepoint_args_skel() is not required by LTL is an implementation > > detail, so that stub could even stay, in case future monitors are going to > > need > > the entire thing. > > Though I still find it cleaner to move that away too until there's a need > > for it > > shared in Monitor. > > I didn't catch what is included in "that"...
Right, it ended up quite cryptic, I meant fill_tracepoint_args_skel() could stay in Monitor although not all Monitors need it, though I honestly prefer to move it away and not rely on the stub. > > What do you think? > > I agreed. fill_tracepoint_args_skel() makes sense in the Monitor class. > If a derived class doesn't need it, it is an implementation detail. > But I get your stance and agree with that too, where fill_tracepoint_args_skel() goes is just nitpicking at this point. Thanks, Gabriele
