linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] ftrace: add a tracepoint for __raise_softirq

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905140923180.30591@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 May 2009 09:25:19 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
cc:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, fweisbec@...il.com,
	zhaolei@...fujitsu.com, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ftrace: add a tracepoint for
 __raise_softirq_irqoff()


On Thu, 14 May 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> > It's not needed for trace/events/irq.h
> > 
> > Yes, it's a solution.
> > 
> > But I don't think we have to do this, CREATE_TRACE_POINTS is
> > needed only _once_ for every <trace/events/xxxx.h>
> > 
> > The .c file which defines CREATE_TRACE_POINTS can provide
> > (had provided likely) things like "#include <linux/interrupt.h>"
> > 
> > See kernel/softirq.c:
> > #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > ......
> > ......
> > #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> > #include <trace/events/irq.h>
> > 
> 
> Isn't it all included under kernel/trace/events.c ? e.g. :

Mathieu,

I've told you this two or three times before. That file no longer exists. 
Maybe it is still there for .30, but these updates are for .31 (too late 
for .30). The code to make TRACE_EVENT work for modules removed the 
events.c file and got rid of those nasty stages.

-- Steve


> 
> #include <trace/trace_events.h>
> 
> #include "trace_output.h"
> 
> #include "trace_events_stage_1.h"
> #include "trace_events_stage_2.h"
> #include "trace_events_stage_3.h"
> 
> Therefore, adding a #include <linux/interrupt.h> would be just weird
> here. We would have to do that for every tracepoint headers, and we
> would just lose the ability to keep track of which tracepoint header has
> which include dependency.
> 
> I thought the goal of TRACE_EVENT() was exactly the opposite : to
> declare everything in one location....
> 
> Therefore, if you agree that it's good to have TRACE_EVENT() declaring
> everything in one location, then I don't see why you would argue to move
> the include dependencies in the very remote kernel/trace/events.c file ?
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> > I don't think it's a problem, CREATE_TRACE_POINTS is defined only
> > once for a <trace/events/xxxx.h>.
> > 
> > Lai.
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
> 
--
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/