----- On Mar 27, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Alexei Starovoitov ast@fb.com wrote:

On 3/27/18 7:42 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:18:24 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Desnoyers [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

----- On Mar 27, 2018, at 10:07 AM, rostedt rostedt@goodmis.org wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:47:02 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

introduce kernel_tracepoint_find_by_name() helper to let bpf core
find tracepoint by name and later attach bpf probe to a tracepoint

Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>

Steven showed preference for tracepoint_kernel_find_by_name() at some
point (starting with a tracepoint_ prefix). I'm find with either of
the names.

Yeah, I do prefer tracepoint_kernel_find_by_name() to stay consistent
with the other tracepoint functions. But we have
"for_each_kernel_tracepoint()" and not "for_each_tracepoint_kernel()",
thus we need to pick being consistent with one or the other. One answer
is to use tracpoint_kernel_find_by_name() and rename the for_each to
for_each_tracpoint_kernel().

yep. that's exactly the reason I picked kernel_tracepoint_find_by_name()
to match for_each_kernel_tracepoint() naming.

I can certainly send a follow up patch to rename both to
*tracepoint_kernel* and then you can nack it because it breaks lttng :)

If Steven prefers changing the name of for_each_kernel_tracepoint() to
for_each_tracepoint_kernel(), I'll adapt LTTng accordingly. I don't
mind either way, as long as the change is justified.

Thanks,

Mathieu

but let's do it in a separate thread.

Daniel,
do you mind adding { } as Steven requested while applying or
you want me to resubmit the whole thing?

Thanks!

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com