From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D8CC433DB for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:46:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1067764EB3 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:46:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230428AbhBRRq2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:46:28 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:35496 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231495AbhBROYt (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:24:49 -0500 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35D5864EAE; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:23:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:23:53 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Tzvetomir Stoyanov Cc: Linux Trace Devel Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] trace-cmd: Add validation for reading and writing trace.dat files Message-ID: <20210218092353.51fdc9e1@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20210217042341.1675546-1-tz.stoyanov@gmail.com> <20210217042341.1675546-2-tz.stoyanov@gmail.com> <20210217110045.71771e87@gandalf.local.home> <20210217132749.70281f99@gandalf.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-devel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 05:49:41 +0200 Tzvetomir Stoyanov wrote: > This works for the current structure of trace.dat file, we can have > these assumptions > and use state instead of a bitmask. But in the future, if we decide to > add optional > sections in the file, or more complex branches - assumptions could not > be valid and > state should be changed to something more flexible. And why I think it's good to have both a state enumeration (for things that must exist in a particular order) and flags for things that are optional and you don't care about order. > As this is not part of any external API, I'm OK to change bitmask to > state. This easily > can be redesigned in the future, if needed. Yes, this can most definitely change in the future, and I like that you are thinking about the future and ways to be flexible. But we also don't want to make things too complex. Having a state enumeration (counter) and flags together handles all cases, and I would recommend doing so as a counter. If there's something that's optional, we can use the flags. Care to send a v2? Thanks! -- Steve