Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] tracing/ftrace: syscall tracing infrastructure

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:52:00PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 09:52:20AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +
> > > > +static atomic_t refcount;
> > > > +
> > > > +enum print_line_t
> > > > +print_syscall_enter(struct trace_iterator *iter, int flags)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct trace_seq *s = &iter->seq;
> > > > +	struct trace_entry *ent = iter->ent;
> > > > +	struct syscall_trace_enter *trace;
> > > > +	enum syscall_trace_nr syscall;
> > > > +	const struct syscall_trace_entry *entry;
> > > > +	char *str = NULL;
> > > > +	int i, ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	trace_assign_type(trace, ent);
> > > > +
> > > > +	syscall = trace->nr;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!syscall || syscall >= __SYSCALL_TRACE_END)
> > > 
> > > You still need to print a "\n" otherwise the output of the next line
> > > will start on the current line.
> > 
> > Are you sure?
> > This entry will be ignored. And the previous one did print a newline.
> > So the next one should not have any problem.
> 
> Does this take over the printline? Otherwise we could be printing a 
> header, (comm, timestamp, cpu, etc).
> 
> -- Steve

Ah ok, I did not think of the headers.