Re: [PATCH 3/3] tools lib traceevent: Introduce pevent_strerror

[Namhyung Kim]

Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 18:04 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> > If you need the code to be thread safe, have all errors do:
>> >
>> > 	ret = pevent_foo();
>> > 	if (ret < 0) {
>> > 		pevent_strerr_val(ret, buf, buflen);
>> >
>> >
>> > For programs that do not need to be thread safe, then:
>> >
>> > 	ret = pevent_foo();
>> > 	if (ret < 0) {
>> > 		pevent_strerr(pevent, buf, buflen);
>> >
>> 
>> Do we really need these two? I think having a single API is just
>> enough, IMHO.
>
> Hmm, maybe not. I guess I was confused about the need to pass the pevent
> into the function. I think we only need the return val. Or is there
> other data in the future that you envision will require needing pevent
> passed in?
>

I was thinking about a way to provide additional information in case of
a parse error by saving them into the pevent. But it turned out to make
the API non-thread-safe. :/ I couldn't find a good way yet.

So, for now, passing the return value only would be enough. But I think
passing pevent into a function name started by pevent_ looks natural. :)

Thanks,
Namhyung

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/