[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0903122333110.18396@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:34:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] tracing: have event_trace_printk use static
tracer
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > +#define event_trace_printk(ip, fmt, args...) \
> > > > +do { \
> > > > + __trace_printk_check_format(fmt, ##args); \
> > > > + tracing_record_cmdline(current); \
> > > > + if (__builtin_constant_p(fmt)) { \
> > > > + static const char *trace_printk_fmt \
> > > > + __attribute__((section("__trace_printk_fmt"))) = \
> > > > + __builtin_constant_p(fmt) ? fmt : NULL; \
> > >
> > > Why __builtin_constant_p(fmt) evaluate twice?
> >
> > It's explained in another patch. But this was a real PITA. We first tried
> > this with just the "if (__builtin_return_p(fmt))" but the way gcc works,
> > it handles the global data assignments before optimizing out condition
> > logic. Thus we ended up getting errors about can not initialize static
> > variable with a non constant.
> >
> > But the ? : operation of the assignment is optimized before the assignment
> > is made. Thus, if fmt is not constant, then we avoid this warning. Then
> > during the conditional optimization, gcc will remove that part of the code
> > altogether.
> >
> > Thus the double __builtin_constant_p(fmt) is needed twice. Try taking out
> > one of them and see what happens with:
> >
> > myfunc(const char *fmt) {
> >
> > event_trace_printk(fmt);
> >
> > }
> >
> > Of course the way this is made, we may not call it that way, but I wanted
> > to be safe.
>
> Thanks for kindful explain.
> So, I guess many developer feel it's strange.
> adding comment is better?
Yeah, I cut and pasted this out from the trace_printk in kernel.h where I
had the comment there. But I think you are right, I probably should copy
that comment here too.
-- 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