On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 08:27:31 +0200
Yordan Karadzhov <y.karadz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have one last question. Do you consider as a valid use case that
> the library must support, someone to do a just 'test" without writing
> after this, or to "write" without testing first?
Actually, that's a very good point.
I was thinking that I didn't like the "test" name, and was thinking of
having it be:
if (tracefs_user_event_enabled(event)) {
tracefs_user_event_record(event, ...);
}
But I think you have a good point. Perhaps we should just have:
tracefs_user_event_trace(event, ...);
and it do all the work. But it would need to be a macro, that does:
#define tracefs_user_event_trace(event, ...) \
do { \
if (tracefs_user_event_enabled(event)) { \
tracefs_user_event_record(event, ##__VA_ARGS); \
} \
} while (0)
Because we do not want to have the compiler process the arguments when
the event is not enabled. That would be too much overhead.
But as a macro, it would work.
Thoughts?
-- Steve
|