linux-kernel - Re: [Patch] Tracing/ftrace: Adds a marker to allow user comments

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]

Message-ID: <c62985530809040920v3c47b57ds40dfd400168bd501@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:20:09 +0200
From:	"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	"Pekka Paalanen" <pq@....fi>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Tracing/ftrace: Adds a marker to allow user comments

2008/8/28 Pekka Paalanen <pq@....fi>:
> Yes, but the atmosphere is that if there are no users in-tree, the feature
> gets kicked, out-of-tree users or no. That's the reason mmiotrace went
> in-tree in the first place. So, to get that stuff exported, we might need
> in-tree users, I believe.

Perhaps it should be more discussed because it is an unsual case...

Ok so just a question before I start a new patch to correct the marker's file.

What is the best way to implement tracers's printk handlers?
Do you think that these functions must be implemented in trace.c or is
it more relevant to dispatch the message to
a function provided by the current tracer in its struct tracer
operations? If such handler is not implemented, we just defaults the
formatting like ftrace_printk does.

Thanks...
--
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/