On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 03:27:04PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:15:07 -0800
> Beau Belgrave <beaub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > @@ -3308,19 +3318,23 @@ process_function(struct tep_event *event, struct tep_print_arg *arg,
> > > free_token(token);
> > > return process_int_array(event, arg, tok);
> > > }
> > > - if (strcmp(token, "__get_str") == 0) {
> > > + if (strcmp(token, "__get_str") == 0 ||
> > > + strcmp(token, "__get_rel_str") == 0) {
> >
> > Should user_events use __get_rel_str vs __get_str for the print_fmt?
> > Both __dyn_loc and __rel_loc use __get_str currently.
>
> I'm guessing that it should use the get_rel_str(), as get_str() will use
> the absolute offset and not the relative one.
>
> -- Steve
It appears both cases call into process_str() and set the
TEP_PRINT_STRING field type.
The TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE bit to advance the offset to a relative position
is within dynamic_offset which is used for TEP_PRINT_STRING field types.
I'm not sure if this was intentional or if __get_rel_str is an artifact
left behind considering __get_str appears to be doing the same thing?
Thanks,
-Beau
|