linux-kernel - Re: TRACE_EVENT() declarations belong to include/trace/

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:04:53 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TRACE_EVENT() declarations belong to include/trace/

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 05:45:11PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Why are there TRACE_EVENT() declarations in arch/powerpc/include/asm/trace.h for
> irq_entry/exit ?
> 
> What's so special about them that they cannot be put in linux/trace/ ?
> 
> I'm all for the trace_irq_entry/exit instrumentation, but I don't see any good
> in adding event declarations outside of include/trace/.
> 
> Thanks,


Yeah,

If this is to trace all irqs, then it seems to me the wrong way.
We already have generic irq_handler_entry and irq_handler_exit trace events.

May be those in powerpc are here to get the spurious irqs by computing
a diff between generic and arch irq events? In which case
it would be better to get dedicated spurious irq tracepoints.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/