Zhenwen Xu wrote:oh! sorry for my careless!
fix warnings that caused the API change of trace_buffer_lock_reserve()
change files: kernel/trace/trace_hw_branch.c
kernel/trace/trace_branch.c
Hmm, did you really compile trace_hw_branch.c while testing
this patch?
This change is necessary too:
- trace_buffer_unlock_commit(tr, event, 0, 0);
+ trace_buffer_unlock_commit(tr->buffer, event, 0, 0);
And use a varaible "buffer = tr->buffer" should be better.
Signed-off-by: Zhenwen Xu <helight.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/trace/trace_branch.c | 2 +-
kernel/trace/trace_hw_branches.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_branch.c b/kernel/trace/trace_branch.c
index 7a7a9fd..216e2dd 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_branch.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_branch.c
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ probe_likely_condition(struct ftrace_branch_data *f, int val, int expect)
goto out;
pc = preempt_count();
- event = trace_buffer_lock_reserve(tr, TRACE_BRANCH,
+ event = trace_buffer_lock_reserve(tr->buffer, TRACE_BRANCH,
sizeof(*entry), flags, pc);
if (!event)
goto out;
diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_hw_branches.c b/kernel/trace/trace_hw_branches.c
index 23b6385..1cc17ca 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_hw_branches.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_hw_branches.c
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ void trace_hw_branch(u64 from, u64 to)
if (atomic_inc_return(&tr->data[cpu]->disabled) != 1)
goto out;
- event = trace_buffer_lock_reserve(tr, TRACE_HW_BRANCHES,
+ event = trace_buffer_lock_reserve(tr->buffer, TRACE_HW_BRANCHES,
sizeof(*entry), 0, 0);
if (!event)
goto out;