[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1267050119.24271.7820.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:21:59 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mm-commits@...r.kernel.org,
hidave.darkstar@...il.com, gregkh@...e.de,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: + kernelh-printk-panic-string-cleanup.patch added to -mm tree
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 22:34 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 01:07:15PM -0800, akpm@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
> >
> That said, it's probably sane to think about a new header to put
> these tracing prototypes, if it's included by kernel.h,
> linux/ftrace.h is already filled with non-general purpose things.
> So may be linux/trace.h ? Yeah this could be confusing, Steve what
> do you think?
>
> And all in one, it would probably better to split this in three
> patches: one that moves printk helpers out of kernel.h to printk.h,
> another following the same pattern for panic things and another one
> for tracing things.
Yeah, I'm fine with moving the tracing related stuff in kernel.h into a
trace.h file and keep ftrace.h specific to ftrace in general.
But I still find it necessary that trace.h gets included by kernel.h.
I can just imaging Thomas yelling at me more when he adds a
tracing_off() or trace_printk() somewhere and then gets a warning about
it not being declared.
I also gave that patch a NAK, in case that carries any weight.
-- Steve
--
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