[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905111003280.14976@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:09:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
cc: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, fweisbec@...il.com,
zhaolei@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ftrace: add a tracepoint for
__raise_softirq_irqoff()
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> Yes, we should try to fix TRACE_EVENT, but we should fix it _before_ we
> start using it widely. Circular header dependencies is a real problem
> with TRACE_EVENT right now.
>
> Until we fix this, I will be tempted to stay with a known-good solution,
> which is DECLARE/DEFINE_TRACE.
The majority of tracepoints happen is C files. Those few cases where they
are used in headers is where the issues arise.
But...
I did not want to uglify all trace event headers with:
#ifdef CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS
#undef CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS
#include <trace/define_trace.h>
#endif
We would only need to do that for those trace points that need to be
included in header files. Then the declaration C file would need to define
both CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS and CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
#define CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS
#define CRATE_TRACE_POINTS
#include <trace/events/foo.h>
But this is pretty trivial to solve, and I do not consider it a show
stopper or a major header dependency problem.
-- 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