Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] tracing: Fix compile error in trace_array calls when TRACING is disabled

[Arun Easi]

On Wed, 7 Sep 2022, 3:52pm, Arun Easi wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Sep 2022, 12:27pm, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 
> > External Email
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > On 9/7/22 11:57, Arun Easi wrote:
> > > +#else	/* CONFIG_TRACING */
> > > +static inline int register_ftrace_export(struct trace_export *export)
> > > +{
> > > +	return -EINVAL;
> > > +}
> > > +static inline int unregister_ftrace_export(struct trace_export *export)
> > > +{
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > 
> > Isn't it recommended to leave a blank line between function definitions?
> > 
> > > +static inline int
> > > +trace_array_printk(struct trace_array *tr, unsigned long ip,
> > > +		       const char *fmt, ...)
> > 
> > This is not the recommended way to format a function definition.
> 
> That was mostly a Y&P from the prototype earlier in the file. Is it the 
> linebreak after "int" you are referring to, or are there more?
> 
> > Consider running git clang-format HEAD^.
> 
> It is a bit cryptic to me what it is complaining about (sorry 
> clang-format newbie here):
> 
> # git clang-format -v HEAD^
> Running clang-format on the following files:
>     include/linux/trace.h
> YAML:671:20: error: unknown enumerated scalar
> SpaceBeforeParens: ControlStatementsExceptForEachMacros
>                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Error reading /root/aeasi/src/mkp.git/.clang-format: Invalid argument
> error: `clang-format -lines=29:30 -lines=51:84 include/linux/trace.h` failed
> 
> Perhaps my clang-tools are not recent enough.
> 
> # clang-format --version
> clang-format version 10.0.1 (Red Hat 10.0.1-1.module+el8.3.0+7459+90c24896)
> 
> Still digging..
> 

Never mind.

Moved to a different machine with newer git and "clang-format" is working 
fine. I will post v3 shortly.

Regards,
-Arun

> 
> 
> > 
> > > +static inline struct trace_array *
> > > +trace_array_get_by_name(const char *name)
> > 
> > Same comment here.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Bart.
> > 
>