[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081023165504.GB25697@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:55:04 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: fix a build error on alpha and m68k
* Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> But they should be able to use the tracing for several other tracers.
> One other problem is that you need CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS (is that a
> lockdep or just trace feature?) to use any tracer since the
> tracing_cpumask file is always created for all tracer. This file has
> tracing_cpumask_write() as a write operation, and this func uses
> raw_local_funcs....
>
> Perhaps we should disable the tracing_cpu_mask related things if
> TRACE_IRQFLAGS in not configured?
to answer the "is that a lockdep or just trace feature" question:
trace-irqflags was first written by me for the (crude) ftrace-precursor
latency tracer code in -rt, years ago. Then i reused it (and changed it
alot) for upstream lockdep, two years ago. Then ftrace came in this year
and reused it.
so it's rather symbiotic ;-)
So ... the tracers that rely on irqflags-tracing should definitely be
limited to architectures that provide TRACE_IRQFLAGS. The core trace.c
itself should probably not be restricted ... (and it should definitely
build)
Ingo
--
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