Then why bother to require to have the TP_ARGS in TRACEPOINT_EVENT_INSTANCE?
Yonghong On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:56 AM Philippe Proulx <eeppelitel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:47 AM Yonghong Yan <yany...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I am looking at the following example from lttng-ust manual. The same > TP_ARGS ( ... ) are repeated in both the TRACEPOINT_EVENT_CLASS and > TRACEPOINT_EVENT_INSTANCE definition. My understanding is that it actually > allows using different arguments, even in this example it is the same. Am I > right? > > No it does not: they need to match. > > See < > https://github.com/lttng/lttng-ust/commit/c75c0422c64f33c0102e1778cecc812c58b700e5 > >. > > Phil > > > > > I also like the feature of having one TP_ARGS in the > TRACEPOINT_EVENT_CLASS that declares the arguments for several > TRACEPOINT_EVENT_INSTANCE so we do not need to have TP_ARGS in > TRACEPOINT_EVENT_INSTANCE. Is that possible? > > > > Thank you > > Yonghong > > > > TRACEPOINT_EVENT_CLASS( > > my_provider, > > my_tracepoint_class, > > TP_ARGS( > > int, my_integer_arg, > > struct app_struct *, app_struct_arg > > ), > > TP_FIELDS( > > ctf_integer(int, a, my_integer_arg) > > ctf_integer(unsigned long, b, app_struct_arg->b) > > ctf_string(c, app_struct_arg->c) > > ) > > ) > > > > TRACEPOINT_EVENT_INSTANCE( > > my_provider, > > my_tracepoint_class, > > event_instance1, > > TP_ARGS( > > int, my_integer_arg, > > struct app_struct *, app_struct_arg > > ) > > ) > > > > TRACEPOINT_EVENT_INSTANCE( > > my_provider, > > my_tracepoint_class, > > event_instance2, > > TP_ARGS( > > int, my_integer_arg, > > struct app_struct *, app_struct_arg > > ) > > ) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lttng-dev mailing list > > lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org > > https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev >
_______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev