On 03/27/2018 05:53 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On 3/27/18 7:42 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:18:24 -0400 (EDT) >> Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote: >>> ----- On Mar 27, 2018, at 10:07 AM, rostedt [email protected] wrote: >>>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:47:02 -0700 >>>> Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> From: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> introduce kernel_tracepoint_find_by_name() helper to let bpf core >>>>> find tracepoint by name and later attach bpf probe to a tracepoint >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <[email protected]> >>> >>> Steven showed preference for tracepoint_kernel_find_by_name() at some >>> point (starting with a tracepoint_ prefix). I'm find with either of >>> the names. >> >> Yeah, I do prefer tracepoint_kernel_find_by_name() to stay consistent >> with the other tracepoint functions. But we have >> "for_each_kernel_tracepoint()" and not "for_each_tracepoint_kernel()", >> thus we need to pick being consistent with one or the other. One answer >> is to use tracpoint_kernel_find_by_name() and rename the for_each to >> for_each_tracpoint_kernel(). > > yep. that's exactly the reason I picked kernel_tracepoint_find_by_name() > to match for_each_kernel_tracepoint() naming. > > I can certainly send a follow up patch to rename both to > *tracepoint_kernel* and then you can nack it because it breaks lttng :) > but let's do it in a separate thread. > > Daniel, > do you mind adding { } as Steven requested while applying or > you want me to resubmit the whole thing?
Yeah, I can fix it up while applying.
