Re: [RFC PATCH] Kernel Tracepoints

[Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>]

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Masami Hiramatsu (mhiramat@redhat.com) wrote:
>> Hi Mathieu,
>>
>> Thank you for making this so soon!
>>
> 
> Hi Masami,
> 
> Thanks for the comments, I will rework the patch accordingly.
> 
> Also, one thing I thought about yesterday which I dislike is that if we
> have two modules declaring the same tracepoint in different headers with
> different prototypes, each declaration will be valid but the
> registration will try to connect a probe expecting wrong parameters to
> the other tracepoint.
> 
> It would be the case if someone does :
> 
> drivers/somedrivera/mydriver1-trace.h
> 
> DECLARE_TRACE(really_generic_name, TPPTOTO(void), TPARGS()));
> 
> 
> drivers/somedriverb/mydriver2-trace.h
> 
> DECLARE_TRACE(really_generic_name, TPPTOTO(struct somestruct *s), TPARGS(s)));
> 
> Do you think it's worth it to append the prototype string to the
> tracepoint name ? I think it should fix the problem.

Hmm, I think we'd better send a fix patch to them in that case.
(I hope we can find that kind of conflicts soon)
I think we can make an external tool which detect those conflicts.
Anyway, signature based checking idea is good to me. I think ":" is
better delimiter.


Thank you,


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com