From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932942AbaLBD6U (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 22:58:20 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0243.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.243]:35409 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932758AbaLBD6T (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 22:58:19 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6E657665747340676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,rostedt@goodmis.org,:::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1431:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3871:3872:3874:5007:6261:7875:10004:10400:10848:10967:11232:11658:11914:12050:12517:12519:12740:13069:13311:13357:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: crow17_65950abe75f46 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1673 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 22:58:16 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , LKML Subject: Re: Checking to see if a bit is _not_ set in a ftrace event filter Message-ID: <20141201225816.01f85aba@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20141201225725.1e94aa66@gandalf.local.home> References: <20141202021912.GA29096@thunk.org> <20141201214104.32d3f10d@gandalf.local.home> <20141201225725.1e94aa66@gandalf.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 22:57:25 -0500 Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:52:11 -0800 > Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > yeah. teaching tree walk to do (state & 2048) == 0 is not trivial, > > since it doesn't have a concept of value of expression. > > Doing !(state & 2048) is probably a bit easier, since there > > are hacks for 'not' already. > > That's exactly what I was looking at doing. If I can get something > working without spending more than an hour or two, I may even push it > for this release cycle. Clarification; When I said "release cycle", I meant the next merge window. Not for 3.18. -- Steve