[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A92F157.9040709@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:00:23 -0700
From: Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Li Zefan <lizf@...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>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] tracing: Make syscall_(un)regfunc arch-specific
On 08/24/2009 12:58 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:31:26PM -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
>> On 08/23/2009 02:14 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> I really don't like that.
>>> See how the s390 and x86 version of the above code are completely
>>> identical?
>>>
>>> Please put this in kernel/ptrace.c
>>
>> Yes, I see your point, and I think kernel/ptrace.c is a fine place for
>> it. Making it conditional on CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS and
>> CONFIG_HAVE_FTRACE_SYSCALLS is probably best too, though I think the
>> latter should now be HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS.
>
>
> As you prefer, this new name can be indeed more verbose.
Actually, now I'm second-guessing the need to move these at all. Since
they only make sense for CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS, can't they stay in
kernel/tracepoint.c and just be conditional on HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS?
The only real change needed is for the tracepoint declarations to also
be conditional.
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