[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090823201537.GE6256@nowhere>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:15:39 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
jiayingz@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tracing: Move tracepoint callbacks into DEFINE
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:34:28PM -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 08/21/2009 10:52 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
> > this means that when CONFIG_EVENT_TRACING is set, the 'generic' syscall
> > enter/exit will show up as events in the debugfs, but enabling them
> > wouldn't do anything. I think we should simply drop the
> > 'CONFIG_FTRACE_SYSCALLS' 'ifdef' and 'else' clause. That will give us
> > what we want - tying these callbacks directly to tracepoint.
>
> But only x86 and s390 have TIF_SYSCALL_FTRACE, while kernel/tracepoint.c
> must still compile everywhere that has CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS=y.
>
> Maybe it would be better to make that #ifdef TIF_SYSCALL_FTRACE, and
> then also #ifdef the TRACE_EVENT declaration, so it will only show up on
> kernels that actually support it.
Instead of testing TIF_SYSCALL_FTRACE, I'd suggest testing HAVE_FTRACE_SYSCALLS.
This makes more sense and is more verbose wrt its role in the conditionnal definition,
given its macro name.
> Also, since this event is now usable outside of ftrace, would you object
> to renaming the flag TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT?
>
> 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