Re: [PATCH] [TRIVIAL] perf probe usability related fixes.

[David Ahern]

On 01/20/2012 05:13 AM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Ingo pointed out few perf probe usability related errors during
> his review of uprobes.
> 
> Since these issues are independent of uprobes, fixing them in a
> separate patch.
> 
> Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  tools/perf/util/probe-event.c |    6 +++---
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/probe-event.c b/tools/perf/util/probe-event.c
> index f6f5794..da38ec5 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/probe-event.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/probe-event.c
> @@ -1825,7 +1825,7 @@ static int __add_probe_trace_events(struct perf_probe_event *pev,
>  	}
>  
>  	ret = 0;
> -	printf("Add new event%s\n", (ntevs > 1) ? "s:" : ":");
> +	printf("Added new event%s\n", (ntevs > 1) ? "s:" : ":");

It's not past tense until after write_probe_trace_event() right? Where
the message is now you can get an error message after that printf.

David

--
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/