linux-kernel - Re: Problem with CREATE_TRACE

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: <20090416110920.GB10487@infradead.org>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:09:20 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problem with CREATE_TRACE_POINTS and recursion safety

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:09:14PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I hate to do this because it adds some more work to the developer adding a 
> new trace point header, but we could just remove the CREATE_TRACE_POINTS 
> and do in the trace/events/*.h headers:
> 
> #ifdef CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS
> #include <trace/define_trace.h>
> #endif
> 
> in all tracepoint headers. I originally had it this way with just the 
> CREATE_TRACE_POINTS, but Christoph Hellwig and Mathieu both suggested 
> putting that into define_trace.h.  It seems so much cleaner to keep it in 
> define_trace.h, but if it is causing too many headaches, it may not be 
> worth it :-/

I still don't like the magic include in every trace header.

What about

#define CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS	"subsystem"

to only create them for a given subsystem?

--
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/