* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:54:22 +0200 > Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This feels really fragile, could you please at least add a comment > > that points out that this is basically an extension of > > sched_process_template, and that it should remain a subset of it, > > or something to that end? > > Is there any dependency on this? > > I don't know of any other dependency to why this was a template other than > to save memory. Uhm, to state the obvious: to not replicate the same definitions over and over again three times times, for 3 scheduler tracepoints that share the record format? Removing just a single sched_process_template use bloats the source and adds in potential fragility: 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) So my request is to please at least add a comment that points the reader to the shared record format between sched_process_exit and the other two tracepoints. Thanks, Ingo
