Re: [PATCH 1/3] Convert generic probe interface to C++ (and perform some cleanups)

[Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>]

Damn, I hit send too soon... here's review part 2.  Actually, there's
wasn't much left.

On 2017-11-14 09:52 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2017-11-13 12:58 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
>> This patch converts the generic probe interface (gdb/probe.[ch]) to
>> C++, and also performs some cleanups that were on my TODO list for a
>> while.
>>
>> The main changes were the conversion of 'struct probe' to 'class
>> probe', and 'struct probe_ops' to 'class static_probe_ops'.  The
>> former now contains all the "dynamic", generic methods that act on a
>> probe + the generic data related to it; the latter encapsulates a
>> bunch of "static" methods that relate to the probe type, but not to a
>> specific probe itself.
> 
> Personally I'm fine with this.  Maybe there would be a better C++-ish
> design, but I'm not very good at that.  If others have suggestions, I'd
> like to hear them.

Given your description, I think "class probe_type" would be a good name
instead of static_probe_ops.

>> -extern const struct probe_ops probe_ops_any;
>> +  /* Return true if the probe can be enabled; false otherwise.  */
>> +  virtual bool can_enable () const
>> +  {
>> +    return false;
>> +  }

Should this be in the static_probe_ops?  Is the fact that a probe can be
enabled/disabled a property of the probe, or the probe type?

Thanks!

Simon