On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 15:22:46 -0500 (EST)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I agree with the overall approach. Just a bit of nitpicking on the API:
>
> I understand that the "prio" argument is a separate argument because it can take
> many values. However, "rcu" is just a boolean, so I wonder if we should not rather
> introduce a "int flags" with a bitmask enum, e.g.
I thought about this approach, but thought it was a bit overkill. As the
kernel doesn't have an internal API, I figured we can switch this over to
flags when we get another flag to add. Unless you can think of one in the
near future.
>
> int tracepoint_probe_register_prio_flags(struct tracepoint *tp, void *probe,
> void *data, int prio, int flags)
>
> where flags would be populated through OR between labels of this enum:
>
> enum tracepoint_flags {
> TRACEPOINT_FLAG_RCU = (1U << 0),
> };
>
> We can then be future-proof for additional flags without ending up calling e.g.
>
> tracepoint_probe_register_featurea_featureb_featurec(tp, probe, data, 0, 1, 0, 1)
No, as soon as there is another boolean to add, the rcu version would be
switched to flags. I even thought about making the rcu and prio into one,
and change prio to be a SHRT_MAX max, and have the other 16 bits be for
flags.
-- Steve
>
> which seems rather error-prone and less readable than a set of flags.
