[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0902241710240.12697@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:11:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, fweisbec@...il.com, tytso@....edu,
arjan@...radead.org, pq@....fi, acme@...hat.com, jbaron@...hat.com,
mbligh@...gle.com, compudj@...stal.dyndns.org, fche@...hat.com,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
mhiramat@...hat.com, srostedt@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4][RFC] tracing: add event trace infrastructure
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:33:45 -0500
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +#define DECLARE_TRACE_FMT(call, proto, args, fmt, fmt_args) \
> > > +static void ftrace_event_##call(proto) \
> > > +{ \
> > > + event_trace_printk(_RET_IP_, "(%s) " fmt "\n", #call, fmt_args); \
> > > +} \
> >
> > <anal>This macro emits a definition, not a declaration.</anal>
>
> yes indeed :) It got modified from one that emitted a
> declaration to also emit a definition and the name was not
> converted.
Yes, I was just adding a modification of DECLARE_TRACE which was indeed a
declare, but converted it to DECLARE_TRACE_FMT.
Would DEFINE_TRACE_FMT(...) be better?
-- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists