[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A8EF6B7.6080802@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:34:15 -0700
From: Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tracing: Move tracepoint callbacks into DEFINE
On 08/21/2009 07:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not strictly correct for the tracepoint reg/unreg callbacks
>> to occur when a client is hooking up, because the actual
>> tracepoint may no be present yet. This happens to be fine for
>> syscall, since that's in the core kernel, but it would cause
>> problems for tracepoints defined in a module that hasn't been
>> loaded yet. It also means the reg/unreg has to be EXPORTed for
>> any modules to use the tracepoint (as in SystemTap).
>>
>> This patch removes DECLARE_TRACE_WITH_CALLBACK, and instead
>> introduces DEFINE_TRACE_WITH_CALLBACK which stores the callbacks
>> in struct tracepoint. The callbacks are used now when the active
>> state of the tracepoint changes in set_tracepoint &
>> disable_tracepoint.
>>
>> This also introduces TRACE_EVENT_WITH_CALLBACK, so those events
>> can also provide callbacks if needed.
>
> i think something shorter would be nicer, such as:
>
> DECLARE_TRACE_FN
> TRACE_EVENT_FN
Well I took out the DECLARE_TRACE_ part, but sure, DEFINE_TRACE_FN and
TRACE_EVENT_FN sound fine to me.
Josh
--
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