On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 22:51 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 09:59 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 18:21 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> >> On 09/04/2012 06:17 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 17:40 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> BTW, you can also go a step further and remove the need to close with double }},
> >>>> with something like:
> >>>>
> >>>> #define do_for_each_ftrace_rec(pg, rec) \
> >>>> for (pg = ftrace_pages_start, rec = &pg->records[pg->index]; \
> >>>> pg && rec == &pg->records[pg->index]; \
> >>>> pg = pg->next) \
> >>>> for (rec = pg->records; rec < &pg->records[pg->index]; rec++)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, but why bother? It's hidden in a macro, and the extra '{ }' shows
> >>> that this is something "special".
> >>
> >> The point of both changes is that there's nothing special in the end
> >> at all. It all just works...
> >>
> >
> > It would still fail on a 'break'. The 'while' macro tells us that it is
> > special, because in the end, it wont work.
>
> Please explain why it would fail on a 'break'.
>
Ah, I missed the condition with the rec == &pg->records[pg->index]. But
if ftrace_pages_start is NULL, the rec = &pg->records[pg->index] will
fault.
You could do something like rec = pg ? &pg->records[pg->index] : NULL,
but IIRC, the comma operator does not guarantee order evaluation. That
is, the compiler is allowed to process "a , b" as "b; a;" and not "a;
b;".
-- Steve
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
