This is the mail archive of the systemtap@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the systemtap project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > A better one would be this construct > @filp->f_dentry->d_inode@ living in a probe of filp_open(). I propose > a functional syntax such as > field(field(var("filp"),"f_dentry"),"d_inode") I personally would prefer the former. When I write probes, I understand the original code. Then it comes naturally that I write @filp->f_dentry->d_inode@ since, like it or not, the kernel is written the same way. If the only argument is ease of parsing, then I suggest making the extra effort. Writing parsers for C-like languages is well understood for 30+ years. The functional form is easier to parse and requires the author to think hard about what s/he wants, but so what? C doesn't require it. -- â Ulrich Drepper â Red Hat, Inc. â 444 Castro St â Mountain View, CA â
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |