Re: [PATCH 5/7] trace-cmd: Added user configured clock to the record context

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:18:36 +0200
Tzvetomir Stoyanov <tstoyanov@vmware.com> wrote:

> Store the user configured clock (if any) in the record context,
> struct common_record_context. The clock is going to be used when
> synchronizing timestamps with remote tracing machine.
> ---
>  tracecmd/trace-record.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tracecmd/trace-record.c b/tracecmd/trace-record.c
> index f7349eb..900d0d4 100644
> --- a/tracecmd/trace-record.c
> +++ b/tracecmd/trace-record.c
> @@ -227,6 +227,7 @@ struct common_record_context {
>  	int topt;
>  	int do_child;
>  	int run_command;
> +	char *clock;
>  };
>  
>  static void add_reset_file(const char *file, const char *val, int prio)
> @@ -5183,6 +5184,7 @@ static void parse_record_options(int argc,
>  			break;
>  		case 'C':
>  			ctx->instance->clock = optarg;
> +			ctx->clock = optarg;

Hmm, this can cause an issue. The first thing I have to ask is, why
can't we use ctx->instance->clock. I'm sure the answer is that we are
adding more than one clock. But this begs the question, which clock
should be use, if there are more than one clock to add?

I think this patch is not needed. In the last patch, test if
ctx->instance->clock exists, and if not, we search the other instances
for a clock to use. Or something else that doesn't make which clock to
use ambiguous.

-- Steve

>  			break;
>  		case 'v':
>  			neg_event = 1;