linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing: Add task activate/deactivate tracepoints

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:	Mon, 31 May 2010 15:16:32 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Add task activate/deactivate tracepoints

On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 20:28 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 12:37 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I'm a little nervous to extend the
> > CREATE_TRACE_POINTS macro to be used within the header to create utility
> > functions, although, currently I don't think there's anything
> > technically wrong in doing so. 
> 
> Right, I can attest to the compile mess that results in not having
> it :-) Given that, I think we're fairly safe with stretching it like
> this, the compiler will yell real loud if you mess this up. So I'm not
> sure you need to be very paranoid about this.

Actually, I'm not worried about getting the utility functions right. I'm
actually more worried about extending TRACE_EVENT() and having this be a
thorn in our side when doing so.

-- Steve


--
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/