Prev: RapidIO Kernel Module?
Next: [PATCH] cgroup: alloc_css_id() increments hierarchy depth
From: Peter Zijlstra on 31 May 2010 14:30
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 12:37 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > +#ifdef CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
>
> I guess this could work. I can't think of anything that would cause this
> to fail. But this is not exactly what the CREATE_TRACE_POINTS macro was
> for.
>
> Maybe we could make a CREATE_UTIL_FUNCTIONS macro that the
> define_trace.h can unset like it does with CREATE_TRACE_POINTS before
> recursively including the trace headers.
>
> Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I'm a little nervous to extend the
> CREATE_TRACE_POINTS macro to be used within the header to create utility
> functions, although, currently I don't think there's anything
> technically wrong in doing so.

Right, I can attest to the compile mess that results in not having
it :-) Given that, I think we're fairly safe with stretching it like
this, the compiler will yell real loud if you mess this up. So I'm not
sure you need to be very paranoid about this.

Duplicating the whole CREATE_TRACE_POINT logic just for a different name
doesn't seem worth the effort at this time, esp. given the compiler
results if you get it wrong.

So do you object if I merge this for now, or would you really rather see
something else?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Steven Rostedt on 31 May 2010 15:20
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 20:28 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 12:37 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I'm a little nervous to extend the
> > CREATE_TRACE_POINTS macro to be used within the header to create utility
> > functions, although, currently I don't think there's anything
> > technically wrong in doing so.
>
> Right, I can attest to the compile mess that results in not having
> it :-) Given that, I think we're fairly safe with stretching it like
> this, the compiler will yell real loud if you mess this up. So I'm not
> sure you need to be very paranoid about this.

Actually, I'm not worried about getting the utility functions right. I'm
actually more worried about extending TRACE_EVENT() and having this be a
thorn in our side when doing so.

-- Steve


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Steven Rostedt on 31 May 2010 15:20
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 20:28 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 12:37 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >

> So do you object if I merge this for now, or would you really rather see
> something else?
>

No, I don't object.

Cautiously-acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt(a)goodmis.org>

-- Steve


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: RapidIO Kernel Module?
Next: [PATCH] cgroup: alloc_css_id() increments hierarchy depth