Re: [PATCH 1/3] mce: acpi/apei: trace: Include PCIe AER trace event conditionally

Naveen N. Rao
2013-08-12T11:37:16Z

On 08/09/2013 12:53 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [ attempting to try out claws-mail, hopefully this messages isn't
> scrambled ;-) ]

Works just fine :)

>
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 23:57:49 +0530
> "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Since we'll be adding multiple trace events to ras.h, we need to protect
>> each block appropriately so that they only get included in the right
>> places. Update PCIe AER trace event for this purpose.
>
> Why not make a separate file for each? You will have to define

The idea was to have all RAS-related trace points in a single place.
This was discussed back when the PCIe AER trace event was added and so I
chose to add the new event here as well.

> TRACE_EVENT_PCIE_AER for the users as well. That is, the places that
> include ras.h and use the trace_aer_*() tracepoints.

Do you mean the change I've done to aerdrv-errprint.c below? This trace
point is currently only used there, so I guess we are ok?

Thanks,
Naveen

>
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c | 1 +
>> include/trace/events/ras.h | 2 +-
>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c
>> index 2c7c9f5..4d06859 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c
>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>> #include "aerdrv.h"
>>
>> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
>> +#define TRACE_EVENT_PCIE_AER
>> #include <trace/events/ras.h>
>>
>> #define AER_AGENT_RECEIVER 0
>> diff --git a/include/trace/events/ras.h b/include/trace/events/ras.h
>> index 88b8783..4a66142 100644
>> --- a/include/trace/events/ras.h
>> +++ b/include/trace/events/ras.h
>> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>> #undef TRACE_SYSTEM
>> #define TRACE_SYSTEM ras
>>
>> -#if !defined(_TRACE_AER_H) || defined(TRACE_HEADER_MULTI_READ)
>> +#if (!defined(_TRACE_AER_H) || defined(TRACE_HEADER_MULTI_READ)) && defined()
>
> I think it would look cleaner to encapsulate the one define with the
> other:
>
> #ifdef TRACE_EVENT_PCIE_AER
> #if !defined(_TRACE_AER_H) || defined(TRACE_HEADER_MULTI_READ)
>
>
> -- Steve
>
>> #define _TRACE_AER_H
>>
>> #include <linux/tracepoint.h>
>