From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: david.goulet@polymtl.ca (David Goulet) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 11:28:52 -0500 Subject: [ltt-dev] [UST PATCH 2/3] Add ustcomm_trace_info struct and support functions to ustcomm In-Reply-To: <1288889678-23413-2-git-send-email-nils.carlson@ericsson.com> References: <1288889678-23413-1-git-send-email-nils.carlson@ericsson.com> <1288889678-23413-2-git-send-email-nils.carlson@ericsson.com> Message-ID: <4CD976C4.9080003@polymtl.ca> Comments below. On 10-11-04 12:54 PM, Nils Carlson wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Nils Carlson > --- > libustcomm/ustcomm.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > libustcomm/ustcomm.h | 11 +++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/libustcomm/ustcomm.c b/libustcomm/ustcomm.c > index fe8fea2..7d0fe00 100644 > --- a/libustcomm/ustcomm.c > +++ b/libustcomm/ustcomm.c > @@ -621,6 +621,38 @@ char * ustcomm_restore_ptr(char *ptr, char *data_field, int data_field_size) > return data_field + (long)ptr; > } > > +int ustcomm_pack_trace_info(struct ustcomm_header *header, > + struct ustcomm_trace_info *trace_inf, > + const char *trace) > +{ > + int offset = 0; > + > + trace_inf->trace = ustcomm_print_data(trace_inf->data, > + sizeof(trace_inf->data), > + &offset, > + trace); In order to understand this "data flow", I put some printf here to output me the "trace_inf->trace" (that in my understanding, should be the trace name with some other stuff...?) but each time it's NULL It appears that you are passing "trace" to ustcomm_print_data and it using it as a "format" and results in having : trace_inf->trace = NULL trace_inf->data = "auto" I'm wondering if this is correct ? (Maybe a little comment on print_data function to tell what kind of output it's generating?) > + > + if (trace_inf->trace == USTCOMM_POISON_PTR) { > + return -ENOMEM; > + } > + > + header->size = COMPUTE_MSG_SIZE(trace_inf, offset); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > + > +int ustcomm_unpack_trace_info(struct ustcomm_trace_info *trace_inf) > +{ > + trace_inf->trace = ustcomm_restore_ptr(trace_inf->trace, > + trace_inf->data, > + sizeof(trace_inf->data)); > + if (!trace_inf->trace) { > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > > int ustcomm_pack_channel_info(struct ustcomm_header *header, > struct ustcomm_channel_info *ch_inf, > diff --git a/libustcomm/ustcomm.h b/libustcomm/ustcomm.h > index f62250c..d548bc1 100644 > --- a/libustcomm/ustcomm.h > +++ b/libustcomm/ustcomm.h > @@ -78,6 +78,11 @@ enum tracectl_commands { > STOP_TRACE, > }; > > +struct ustcomm_trace_info { > + char *trace; Would not be better to call the above variable something like "trace_name" because it's becoming quite confusing in the code with "trace" all over the place. If so, maybe change the name all over the code from const char *trace to const char *trace_name Some other comment in the next patch but it follow these a bit. Thanks David > + char data[USTCOMM_DATA_SIZE]; > +}; > + > struct ustcomm_channel_info { > char *channel; > unsigned int subbuf_size; > @@ -172,6 +177,12 @@ extern char * ustcomm_restore_ptr(char *ptr, char *data_field, > (size_t) (long)(struct_ptr)->data - (long)(struct_ptr) + (offset) > > /* Packing and unpacking functions, making life easier */ > +extern int ustcomm_pack_trace_info(struct ustcomm_header *header, > + struct ustcomm_trace_info *trace_inf, > + const char *trace); > + > +extern int ustcomm_unpack_trace_info(struct ustcomm_trace_info *trace_inf); > + > extern int ustcomm_pack_channel_info(struct ustcomm_header *header, > struct ustcomm_channel_info *ch_inf, > const char *channel); -- David Goulet LTTng project, DORSAL Lab. PGP/GPG : 1024D/16BD8563 BE3C 672B 9331 9796 291A 14C6 4AF7 C14B 16BD 8563