On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:49:33 +0300 "Yordan Karadzhov (VMware)" <y.karadz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11.07.2018 19:41, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> +/** > >> + * @brief Simple Pid matching function to be user for data requests. > >> + * @param kshark_ctx: Input location for the session context pointer. > >> + * @param e: kshark_entry to be checked. > >> + * @param pid: Matching condition value. > >> + * @returns True if the Pid of the entry matches the value of "pid". > >> + * Else false. > > Is this going to be extended in the future? Why the kshark_ctx? > > > > Yes, this is something we need to discuss. > > in the header we have > > /** Matching condition function type. To be user for data requests */ > typedef bool (matching_condition_func)(struct kshark_context*, > struct kshark_entry*, > int); > > I wanted the type of the abstract condition function to be such that it > can accommodate complicated logic in the future. > What do you think? > Makes sense. I just didn't realize that the kshark_check_pid is one of the matching functions. Hmm, perhaps we should rename it to: kshark_match_pid() ? -- Steve
|