Re: [PATCH 2/5] tracing: simplify the logic by defining next to be "lasst + 1"

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri,  3 Jul 2020 10:06:09 +0800
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The value to be used and compared in trace_search_list() is "last + 1".
> Let's just define next to be "last + 1" instead of doing the addition
> each time.

Yeah, this is a nice clean up. I'll take this one.

-- Steve

> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/trace/trace_output.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_output.c b/kernel/trace/trace_output.c
> index 47bf9f042b97..b704b3ef4264 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_output.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_output.c
> @@ -675,11 +675,11 @@ static LIST_HEAD(ftrace_event_list);
>  static int trace_search_list(struct list_head **list)
>  {
>  	struct trace_event *e;
> -	int last = __TRACE_LAST_TYPE;
> +	int next = __TRACE_LAST_TYPE + 1;
>  
>  	if (list_empty(&ftrace_event_list)) {
>  		*list = &ftrace_event_list;
> -		return last + 1;
> +		return next;
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -687,17 +687,17 @@ static int trace_search_list(struct list_head **list)
>  	 * lets see if somebody freed one.
>  	 */
>  	list_for_each_entry(e, &ftrace_event_list, list) {
> -		if (e->type != last + 1)
> +		if (e->type != next)
>  			break;
> -		last++;
> +		next++;
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Did we used up all 65 thousand events??? */
> -	if ((last + 1) > TRACE_EVENT_TYPE_MAX)
> +	if (next > TRACE_EVENT_TYPE_MAX)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	*list = &e->list;
> -	return last + 1;
> +	return next;
>  }
>  
>  void trace_event_read_lock(void)