On 19.08.21 г. 19:55, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:59:29 +0300 "Yordan Karadzhov (VMware)" <y.karadz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:The new method can print only a subset of the unique data fields of the trace event. The print format is derived from the parsing tokens (tep_print_parse objects) of the event. Signed-off-by: Yordan Karadzhov (VMware) <y.karadz@xxxxxxxxx> --- src/event-parse.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++---- src/event-parse.h | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/event-parse.c b/src/event-parse.c index 0795135..645506e 100644 --- a/src/event-parse.c +++ b/src/event-parse.c @@ -5455,20 +5455,38 @@ void tep_print_field(struct trace_seq *s, void *data, _tep_print_field(s, data, field, NULL); }-void tep_print_fields(struct trace_seq *s, void *data,- int size __maybe_unused, struct tep_event *event) +static inline void +print_selected_fields(struct trace_seq *s, void *data, + struct tep_event *event, + unsigned long long ignore_mask) { struct tep_print_parse *parse = event->print_fmt.print_cache; struct tep_format_field *field; + unsigned long long field_mask = 1;field = event->format.fields;- while (field) { + for (;field; field = field->next, field_mask *= 2) {The above should be: for(; field; field = field->next, field_mask <<= 1) { As a shift should be done with a shift operator and not a multiplication. Other than that, the rest looks good. I'll go ahead and pull in patches 1 and 2. -- Steve+ if (field_mask & ignore_mask) + continue; + trace_seq_printf(s, " %s=", field->name); _tep_print_field(s, data, field, &parse); - field = field->next; } }+void tep_print_selected_fields(struct trace_seq *s, void *data,As the above is an API, it needs a kernel doc type comment, and also an addition to the man pages. The man page may be a separate patch.
I was thinking of maybe changing the second argument of the function to void tep_print_selected_fields(struct trace_seq *s, struct tep_record *record, struct tep_event *event, unsigned long long ignore_mask)
-- Steve+ struct tep_event *event, + unsigned long long ignore_mask) +{ + print_selected_fields(s, data, event, ignore_mask);
respectively here we will have print_selected_fields(s, record->data, event, ignore_mask);
+}
This way the call will look cleaner. tep_print_selected_fields(s, record, event, mask); instead of tep_print_selected_fields(s, record->data, event, mask); But on the other hand, this will make the new API inconsistent with the existing "tep_print_fields()" API bellow. What do you think? Thanks! Yordan
+ +void tep_print_fields(struct trace_seq *s, void *data, + int size __maybe_unused, struct tep_event *event) +{ + print_selected_fields(s, data, event, 0); +} + static int print_function(struct trace_seq *s, const char *format, void *data, int size, struct tep_event *event, struct tep_print_arg *arg) diff --git a/src/event-parse.h b/src/event-parse.h index d4a876f..e3638cf 100644 --- a/src/event-parse.h +++ b/src/event-parse.h @@ -545,6 +545,9 @@ int tep_cmdline_pid(struct tep_handle *tep, struct tep_cmdline *cmdline);void tep_print_field(struct trace_seq *s, void *data,struct tep_format_field *field); +void tep_print_selected_fields(struct trace_seq *s, void *data, + struct tep_event *event, + unsigned long long ignore_mask); void tep_print_fields(struct trace_seq *s, void *data, int size __maybe_unused, struct tep_event *event); int tep_strerror(struct tep_handle *tep, enum tep_errno errnum,
|