From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753300AbbDFQTY (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Apr 2015 12:19:24 -0400 Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net ([194.109.24.21]:56623 "EHLO lb1-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751331AbbDFQTX (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Apr 2015 12:19:23 -0400 Message-ID: <1428337159.634.132.camel@x220> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] tracing: Add 'hist' event trigger command From: Paul Bolle To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Tom Zanussi , masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, namhyung@kernel.org, andi@firstfloor.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 18:19:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20150406115012.179e3fa6@gandalf.local.home> References: <9fe50519aa2cac1550b40a0e396dd721eff03574.1428072891.git.tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> <1428160496.7898.132.camel@x220> <20150406115012.179e3fa6@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-4.fc20) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2015-04-06 at 11:50 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 17:14:56 +0200 > Paul Bolle wrote: > > > --- a/kernel/trace/Makefile > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/Makefile > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_HIST_TRIGGERS) += trace_events_hist.o > > > > To make sure I'm parsing this Makefile correctly: trace_events_hist.o > > will never be part of a module, right? > > You don't need to be part of a module to need module.h. You may just > need module info. I understand. But the main reason I added that remark was that recently I ran into a few patches where I made annoying mistakes in parsing changes to Makefiles. Doing so I wasted my own and other peoples time. So I decided to be rather verbose when Makefiles are involved. Just so that people can: - mock me for not getting basic stuff right; - stop paying attention to the rest of my remarks, because chances are I didn't understand the patch in question correctly. Thanks, Paul Bolle