From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756272AbZDQU3v (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:29:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752339AbZDQU3m (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:29:42 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f176.google.com ([209.85.219.176]:40320 "EHLO mail-ew0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752470AbZDQU3l (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:29:41 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=H0UvTpzyA/Us75tKcbHEARYXAC65Bpp7nkZ2hg/ucqTP2EG5hacbj3XON5Cj1gonLC 8NOFZ9Qb6fAk4o2zSLt7zqSz1jLoUAET4cfpPnFP/DdICeuf+X6VrNfVKhF7Ge4h0zB8 k2f9cldWGAQb1sSEJTSJWSyGzb/VE3uPrOw9o= Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:29:37 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Ingo Molnar , KOSAKI Motohiro , Zhaolei , Tom Zanussi , Li Zefan , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/lockdep: turn lock->name into an array Message-ID: <20090417202936.GB6331@nowhere> References: <1239662166-13208-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20090414153035.C662.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090414065303.GA24626@elte.hu> <49E8BB98.3090901@goop.org> <1239989260.23397.4848.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 01:36:58PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:25 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > We could zap all pending trace entries on module unload (it is a > > > > rare operation) > > > > > > ....Unless you're trying to trace something across a module unload. I > > > don't know if its at all practical, but it would be nice to just zap the > > > pointers within the buffer, rather than the whole buffer. > > > > I think the new __string() thing that's in the works will avoid the > > whole problem by copying the string into the buffer, instead of keeping > > a reference. > > Speaking of which. We have not heard back from Frederic on this yet. I > hope he's taking a break, enjoying the sun, and not stuck on some tricky > macro crap ;-) > > -- Steve > Oh you haven't yet received my mail about that? It said I was cheering up about your and Peter's idea of using offsets instead of pointer because of the end result: - We can use as much __string() as we want - No need for something else, such as the strcpy bits - We are not forced to put it in the end of the patch - Which means I will implement that in a v3 very soon ;-) Frederic.