[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090608204056.GA26832@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:40:56 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, jiayingz@...gle.com,
mbligh@...gle.com, roland@...hat.com, fche@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] convert to syscall tracepoints
* Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com> wrote:
> +#ifdef __NR_time
> +trace_event_syscall(1, time, time_t __user *, tloc);
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifdef __NR_stime
> +trace_event_syscall(1, stime, time_t __user *, tptr);
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifdef __NR_gettimeofday
> +trace_event_syscall(2, gettimeofday, struct timeval __user *, tv, struct timezone __user *, tz);
> +#endif
This could be reduced to a single line: just add a Kconfig entry
(say TRACE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS) wether an arch supports syscall
tracepoints, enable it on a sane arch, make sure it has all the
syscalls and list them ...
As more architectures turn on SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS, they'll have to
resolve any deviations in syscall entry points. Ideally we'd have
one generic table that covers 95% of all syscalls, and the remaining
5% in some architecture specific #ifdef section.
But, more generally, i'm not at all convinced that we need _any_ of
this enumeration. Look how much the above lines duplicate
DEFINE_SYSCALL macros. Why arent those macros re-used?
We dont need too smart pretty-printing i think - we only want to
know the field size and the field name - nothing else. Duplicating
all those definitions looks outright wrong to me. Do we really,
really, really have to do it?
Ingo
--
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