From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Add task activate/deactivate tracepoints
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 20:28:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1275330522.1645.523.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1275323853.15884.14.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
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?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-31 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-28 14:26 [PATCH] tracing: Add task activate/deactivate tracepoints Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-28 15:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-31 8:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-05-31 8:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-31 8:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-31 14:36 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-31 14:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-31 14:48 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-05-31 16:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-31 16:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-05-31 18:28 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-05-31 19:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-05-31 19:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-05-31 16:51 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-06-01 9:13 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched, trace: Fix sched_switch() prev_state argument tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1275330522.1645.523.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox