On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:50:43 +0000 Beau Belgrave <be...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
So the patches look good, but since I gave you some updates, I'm now going to go though "nits". Like grammar and such ;-) > The current code for finding and deleting events assumes that there will > never be cases when user_events are registered with the same name, but > different formats. In the future this scenario will exist to ensure > user programs can be updated or modify their events and run different > versions of their programs side-by-side without being blocked. Can you change the last sentence above. I read it three times and it's still awkward to understand it. Particularly, the "user programs can be updated or modify their events". That just doesn't want to compute. > > This change does not yet allow for multi-format events. If user_events > are registered with the same name but different arguments the programs > see the same return values as before. This change simply makes it > possible to easily accomodate for this in future changes. I think you can drop the "in future changes" part. > > Update find_user_event() to take in argument parameters and register > flags to accomodate future multi-format event scenarios. Have find > validate argument matching and return error pointers to cover address > in use cases, or allocation errors. Update callers to handle error "to cover address in use cases" ? > pointer logic. > > Move delete_user_event() to use hash walking directly now that find has > changed. Delete all events found that match the register name, stop "now that find has changed" ? You mean the "find function"? > if an error occurs and report back to the user. > > Update user_fields_match() to cover list_empty() scenarios instead of > each callsite doing it now that find_user_event() uses it directly. The above is a bit of a run-on sentence. -- Steve > > Signed-off-by: Beau Belgrave <be...@linux.microsoft.com> > ---