On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 03:07:49PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 06:00:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > The use of macros to determine the size of the keys and vals arrays made > > me think a bit more about how we initialize the traceeval. The more I'm > > using the library, the less I like having to add the TRACEEVAL_TYPE_NONE > > to the end of the keys and vals array. > > > > Instead, use the same macro trick of TRACEEVAL_ARRAY_SIZE() to determine > > the number of elements. Still allow the use of using the > > TRACEEVAL_TYPE_NONE to determine the size (if the number passed in is > > still bigger), so that most applications that still use that still work. > > > > I made the change separate than updating the sample code to test that > > the old way still works. Then I updated the sample to make sure the new > > way works. Perhaps when we add unit tests back in, we'll test both > > cases. > > Looks good, you can add: > Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <zwisler@xxxxxxxxxx> Actually, I think we need to make similar updates in check_keys() and check_vals(), else calls to traceeval_init_data_size() will walk off the end of those respective arrays. > > > Steven Rostedt (Google) (2): > > libtraceeval: Remove need to use TRACEEVAL_TYPE_NONE in keys and vals > > libtraceeval samples: Remove adding TRACEEVAL_TYPE_NONE to keys and > > vals > > > > include/traceeval-hist.h | 11 +++++++++-- > > samples/task-eval.c | 18 ------------------ > > src/histograms.c | 11 +++++++---- > > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.40.1 > >
|