On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:15:19 -0300
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 02:03:20PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:56:55 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:49:28 +0900
> > > Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > >> Oh, it looks better. But
Em Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 02:03:20PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:56:55 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:49:28 +0900
> > Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> Oh, it looks better. But I'd like to TRACE_SEQ_CHECK() as is for some
> >> cases. How about this?
> >
Em Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 02:03:20PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:56:55 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:49:28 +0900
Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Oh, it looks better. But I'd like to TRACE_SEQ_CHECK() as is for some
cases. How about
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:15:19 -0300
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo a...@ghostprotocols.net wrote:
Em Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 02:03:20PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:56:55 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:49:28 +0900
Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:56:55 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:49:28 +0900
> Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Oh, it looks better. But I'd like to TRACE_SEQ_CHECK() as is for some
>> cases. How about this?
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt
>
> I'll try to look at the
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:49:28 +0900
Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:00:58 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:45:24 +0900
> > Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> @@ -32,8 +33,9 @@
> >> #define TRACE_SEQ_POISON ((void *)0xdeadbeef)
> >> #define
Hi Steve,
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:00:58 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:45:24 +0900
> Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
>>
>> @@ -32,8 +33,9 @@
>> #define TRACE_SEQ_POISON((void *)0xdeadbeef)
>> #define TRACE_SEQ_CHECK(s) \
>> do {
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:45:24 +0900
Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> @@ -32,8 +33,9 @@
> #define TRACE_SEQ_POISON ((void *)0xdeadbeef)
> #define TRACE_SEQ_CHECK(s) \
> do { \
> - if
The trace_seq->state is for tracking errors during the use of
trace_seq APIs and getting rid of die() in it.
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim
---
tools/lib/traceevent/Makefile | 2 +-
tools/lib/traceevent/event-parse.h | 7 ++
tools/lib/traceevent/trace-seq.c | 46
The trace_seq-state is for tracking errors during the use of
trace_seq APIs and getting rid of die() in it.
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org
---
tools/lib/traceevent/Makefile | 2 +-
tools/lib/traceevent/event-parse.h | 7 ++
tools/lib/traceevent/trace-seq.c | 46
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:45:24 +0900
Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
@@ -32,8 +33,9 @@
#define TRACE_SEQ_POISON ((void *)0xdeadbeef)
#define TRACE_SEQ_CHECK(s) \
do { \
-
Hi Steve,
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:00:58 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:45:24 +0900
Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
@@ -32,8 +33,9 @@
#define TRACE_SEQ_POISON((void *)0xdeadbeef)
#define TRACE_SEQ_CHECK(s) \
do {
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:49:28 +0900
Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Steve,
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:00:58 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:45:24 +0900
Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
@@ -32,8 +33,9 @@
#define TRACE_SEQ_POISON ((void
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:56:55 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:49:28 +0900
Namhyung Kim namhy...@kernel.org wrote:
Oh, it looks better. But I'd like to TRACE_SEQ_CHECK() as is for some
cases. How about this?
Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org
14 matches
Mail list logo
