[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <487CF206.4010905@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:52:54 -0400
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Hideo AOKI <haoki@...hat.com>,
Takashi Nishiie <t-nishiie@...css.fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munteanu@...ux360.ro>,
Paul E McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/15] Kernel Tracepoints
Hi,
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 10:46 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
>> Talking about headers, I have noticed that placing headers with the code
>> may not be as clean as I would hope. For instance, the kernel/irq-trace.h
>> header, when included from kernel/irq/handle.c, has to be included with:
>>
>> #include "../irq-trace.h"
>>
>> Which is not _that_ bad, but we we want to instrument the irq handler
>> found in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_intel_64.c, including
>> #include "../../../../../kernel/irq-trace.h" makes me go "yeeeek!"
>>
>> How about creating include/trace/irq.h and friends ?
>
> Might as well.. anybody else got opinions?
I just wonder why DEFINE_TRACE are used in separated headers
instead of include/linux/irq.h directly.
anyway, #include <trace/XXX.h> is good to me.
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com
--
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