[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904160941520.5262@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:42:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.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 Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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?
I tried this. But it seems that there's no way to compare strings with the
preprocessor. You can compare numbers, but having each subsystem define
its own number would be a pain to manage.
-- 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