On 2019/10/21 下午9:56, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:47:30 +0800
> Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> +static void print_uuid_arg(struct trace_seq *s, void *data, int size,
>> + struct tep_event *event, struct tep_print_arg *arg)
>> +{
>> + unsigned char *buf;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + if (arg->type != TEP_PRINT_FIELD) {
>> + trace_seq_printf(s, "ARG TYPE NOT FIELID but %d", arg->type);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!arg->field.field) {
>> + arg->field.field = tep_find_any_field(event, arg->field.name);
>> + if (!arg->field.field) {
>> + do_warning("%s: field %s not found",
>> + __func__, arg->field.name);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + if (arg->field.field->size < 16) {
>> + trace_seq_printf(s, "INVALID UUID: size have %u expect 16",
>> + arg->field.field->size);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + buf = data + arg->field.field->offset;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
>> + trace_seq_printf(s, "%02x", buf[2 * i]);
>> + trace_seq_printf(s, "%02x", buf[2 * i + 1]);
>> + if (1 <= i && i <= 4)
>
> I'm fine with this patch except for one nit. The above is hard to read
> (in my opinion), and I absolutely hate the "constant" compare to
> "variable" notation. Please change the above to:
>
> if (i >= 1 && i <= 4)
Isn't this ( 1 <= i && i <= 4 ) easier to find out the lower and upper
boundary? only two numbers, both at the end of the expression.
I feel that ( i >= 1 && i <= 4 ) easier to write, but takes me extra
half second to read, thus I changed to the current one.
Thanks,
Qu
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Steve
>
>> + trace_seq_putc(s, '-');
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
|