On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:54:27 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 17:53 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung....@lge.com>
>>
>> Rename it to do_read and original do_read to __do_read, and check
>> their return value.
>>
>> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
>> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org>
>> ---
>> tools/perf/util/trace-event-read.c | 80
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/trace-event-read.c
>> b/tools/perf/util/trace-event-read.c
>> index 62dd2168f4f5..87f0ccd54cdc 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/trace-event-read.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/trace-event-read.c
>> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static int long_size;
>> static ssize_t calc_data_size;
>> static bool repipe;
>>
>> -static int do_read(int fd, void *buf, int size)
>> +static int __do_read(int fd, void *buf, int size)
>> {
>> int rsize = size;
>>
>> @@ -61,8 +61,10 @@ static int do_read(int fd, void *buf, int size)
>> if (repipe) {
>> int retw = write(STDOUT_FILENO, buf, ret);
>>
>> - if (retw <= 0 || retw != ret)
>> - die("repiping input file");
>> + if (retw <= 0 || retw != ret) {
>> + pr_debug("repiping input file");
>
> Again, why debug and not err?
Well, there's a pr_err() at the caller of top-level trace_report() in
case of error. So if we use pr_err() there'll be multiple error message
for one failure and I don't think it's so helpful to normal users. If
one really wants to know what happens inside, she will set -v to see
this low-level debug message.
Does that make sense?
>
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> size -= ret;
>> @@ -72,14 +74,16 @@ static int do_read(int fd, void *buf, int size)
>> return rsize;
>> }
>>
>> -static int read_or_die(void *data, int size)
>> +static int do_read(void *data, int size)
>> {
>> int r;
>>
>> - r = do_read(input_fd, data, size);
>> - if (r <= 0)
>> - die("reading input file (size expected=%d received=%d)",
>> - size, r);
>> + r = __do_read(input_fd, data, size);
>> + if (r <= 0) {
>> + pr_debug("reading input file (size expected=%d received=%d)",
>> + size, r);
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>>
>> if (calc_data_size)
>> calc_data_size += r;
>> @@ -95,7 +99,7 @@ static void skip(int size)
>>
>> while (size) {
>> r = size > BUFSIZ ? BUFSIZ : size;
>> - read_or_die(buf, r);
>> + do_read(buf, r);
>
> Shouldn't this check the result of do_read()?
I was not so sure about this, but I skipped the check since all it does
is to "skip" and comment said "If it fails, the next read will report
it". :-)
Thanks,
Namhyung
>
>> size -= r;
>> };
>> }
>
> -- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
