Re: [PATCH -next] trace_skb: fix build when CONFIG_NET is not enabled

Ingo Molnar
2009-08-17T22:47:49Z

* David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:58:08 +0200
>
> >> --- linux-next-20090817.orig/kernel/trace/Kconfig
> >> +++ linux-next-20090817/kernel/trace/Kconfig
> >> @@ -236,6 +236,7 @@ config BOOT_TRACER
> >>
> >> config SKB_SOURCES_TRACER
> >> bool "Trace skb source information"
> >> + depends on NET
> >> select GENERIC_TRACER
> >> help
> >> This tracer helps developers/sysadmins correlate skb allocation and
> >
> > Hm, there's nothing like this in the tracing tree.
> >
> > Could we please move kernel/trace/* commits to the tracing tree, so
> > that it gets adequate testing and review, etc?
>
> This one (like previous networking tracing changes Neil has made)
> touched a decent amount of networking code, and thus we
> integrated it into net-next-2.6

the three skb-sources-tracer patches i saw submitted were:

include/trace/events/skb.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
net/core/datagram.c | 3 +++
2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)

kernel/traceKconfig | 10 ++++++++++

kernel/trace/Makefile | 1
kernel/trace/trace.h | 19 ++++++
kernel/trace/trace_skb_sources.c | 154 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

only touched the networking code for 3 lines in
net/core/datagram.c.

Think about it: how would you react if i added a new file to
net/core/ and modified net/Kconfig, and then broke the build? You'd
quite likely insist on it being done via net-next-2.6, right? You'd
also likely be upset about that kind of change, wouldnt you?

Also, has the review feedback from the tracing folks been
addressed? Please separate these patches out and lets do this
properly, this approach is not acceptable.

Ingo