Re: [PATCH 10/38] Fix comments in dt_cg.c

[Kris Van Hees <kris.van.hees@oracle.com>]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:34:27AM -0400, eugene.loh@oracle.com wrote:
> From: Eugene Loh <eugene.loh@oracle.com>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eugene Loh <eugene.loh@oracle.com>
> ---
>  libdtrace/dt_cg.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/libdtrace/dt_cg.c b/libdtrace/dt_cg.c
> index 0977406a..4fd2d359 100644
> --- a/libdtrace/dt_cg.c
> +++ b/libdtrace/dt_cg.c
> @@ -1150,9 +1150,9 @@ dt_cg_prologue(dt_pcb_t *pcb, dt_node_t *pred)
>  
>  /*
>   * Generate the function epilogue:
> - *	4. Submit the buffer to the perf event output buffer for the current
> + *	1. Submit the buffer to the perf event output buffer for the current
>   *	   cpu, if this is a data recording action..
> - *	5. Return 0
> + *	2. Return 0

This numbering was meant to continue the numbering that is in the comment block
for dt_cg_prologue(), which now would make this be 6 and 7.  The thought behind
that numbering (which was correctly sequential until we added speculation stuff
to the prologue) is that 1 through 7 cover all the steps of code that is
generated for a function.

But if you think that is too comfusing, I am ok with going with 1 and 2 here.
It just changes what this was meant to convey.

>   * }
>   */
>  static void
> -- 
> 2.18.4
>