On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:40:35 +0900 Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>> Perhaps call it > >>> > >>> pevent->filter_error_buffer > >>> > >>> ? > > > > Hmm.. thinking about it twice, if it's only for filter functions > > wouldn't it be better moving it to event_filter rather than pevent? > > > > filter->error_buffer Agreed. > > > > One more thinking, if we agree on converting to return error code, does > pevent_filter_add_filter_str() also need to be changed not to receive > the third "error_str" argument? Yes, if we add the filter->error_buffer, we can remove it here. > > And should we extend the error code to include the return value of > pevent_filter_match() too? If not, it seems we need to pass another > argument to receive the actual error code in case of FILTER_ERROR. I'm a bit confused on this. Perhaps it's something you added in your patches. If what returns FILTER_ERROR? > > I'm saying these here since they might require interface/signature > change so will affect existing users like trace-cmd. I'm OK if they change now. I'll have trace-cmd and other users adapt. As each currently has their own copy. I've been updating trace-cmd with what's in tools for a while now, and plan to continue doing that until we have something that seems good for a public library. -- 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/
