[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A82F5A0.2090603@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:24 -0400
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@...gle.com>,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: Syscalls trace events + perf support
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Frederic and Jason,
>
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> Frederic Weisbecker (3):
>> tracing: Add ftrace event call parameter to its field descriptor handler
>
>> Jason Baron (12):
>> tracing: Add ftrace_event_call void * 'data' field
>
> Both of you added a parameter to ftrace_event_call for passing
> sycall name (call->data) to handlers, but one passes 'ftrace_event_call *'
> and another passes 'void *'. It seems not enough unified.
>
> And also, I'm now updating my patch for 'dynamic ftrace_event_call'
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/24/234
> which adds 'ftrace_event_call *' for all handlers.
>
> I think passing 'ftrace_event_call *' is more generic way
> to do that. What would you think about that?
Hmm, I changed my mind that passing 'void *' is enough, since
all other fields of ftrace_event_call will be handled in
trace_events.c.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com
--
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