From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932316AbbDMNlq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 13 Apr 2015 09:41:46 -0400
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:39433 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754328AbbDMNlp (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 13 Apr 2015 09:41:45 -0400
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:41:41 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] tools lib traceevent: Honor operator priority
Message-ID: <20150413134141.GF3200@kernel.org>
References: <1428298576-9785-1-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <1428298576-9785-10-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1428298576-9785-10-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Em Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 02:36:16PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> Currently it ignores operator priority and just sets processed args as a
> right operand.  But it could result in priority inversion in case that
> the right operand is also a operator arg and its priority is lower.
> 
> For example, following print format is from new kmem events.
> 
>   "page=%p", REC->pfn != -1UL ? (((struct page *)(0xffffea0000000000UL)) + (REC->pfn)) : ((void *)0)
> 
> But this was treated as below:
> 
>   REC->pfn != ((null - 1UL) ? ((struct page *)0xffffea0000000000UL + REC->pfn) : (void *) 0)
> 
> In this case, the right arg was '?' operator which has lower priority.
> But it just sets the whole arg so making the output confusing - page was
> always 0 or 1 since that's the result of logical operation.
> 
> With this patch, it can handle it properly like following:
> 
>   ((REC->pfn != (null - 1UL)) ? ((struct page *)0xffffea0000000000UL + REC->pfn) : (void *) 0)

And this one already went upstream.

- Arnaldo