On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:07:30 +0200
"Tzvetomir Stoyanov (VMware)" <tz.stoyanov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -4437,6 +4456,30 @@ static void write_guest_file(struct buffer_instance *instance)
> free(temp_files);
> }
>
> +static struct tracecmd_output *create_output(struct common_record_context *ctx)
> +{
> + struct tracecmd_output *out;
> + int fd;
> +
> + fd = open(ctx->output, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_LARGEFILE, 0644);
I stopped at this patch because I really dislike the above.
Why don't we have:
tracecmd_output_allocate(file);
and
tracecmd_output_allocate_fd(fd);
Where tracecmd_output_allocate(file) does:
struct tracecmd_output *tracecmd_output_allocate(const char *file)
{
int fd;
fd = open(file, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_LARGEFILE, 0644);
if (fd < 0)
return NULL;
return tracecmd_output_allocate_fd(fd);
}
?
Then we could remove a lot of these duplicate opens all over the place.
Although, I'm not sure I like the name allocate. It probably should be called:
tracecmd_output_create();
and we keep tracecmd_output_allocate() as is?
-- Steve
> + if (fd < 0)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + out = tracecmd_output_allocate(fd);
> + if (!out)
> + goto error;
> + if (tracecmd_output_write_headers(out, listed_events))
> + goto error;
> + return out;
> +error:
> + if (out)
|