[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080621190132.E835.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:12:59 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
systemtap-ml <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
Hideo AOKI <haoki@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch 2/2] markers: example of irq regular kernel markers
Hi!
> > By doing so, we could leave a gcc format string check by passing the
> > format string to __mark_check_format(). We could extract the field names
> > from the prototype, so there is no need to duplicate field information
> > in the format string.
>
> I thought that someone complained against those format strings in
> kernel code. Thus I removed it from DEFINE_TRACE.
>
> even though, I think you can do that by adding below string table
> to LTTng module.
>
> const char *lookup_table[MAX_MARKERS][2] = {
> {"irq_entry", "%d %d"}, // or "(int irq_id, int kernel_mode)", "%d %d"
> ...
> };
if move string to out of kernel core, compiler may kill some variable.
thus, we will get incomplete tracing result.
I think your proposal is very interesting.
but I dont understand why someone dislike format strings.
Could you explain this reason?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists