On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 16:36:12 +0300
Yordan Karadzhov <y.karadz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
I think we rushed the libtraceevent APIs :-(
There's a lot of them I hate, and I agree, passing record would have made more sense.
I've been thinking of reworking a lot of them, but we need to add new APIs.
tep_print_record_fields()
tep_print_record_selected_fields()
??
-- Steve
|