[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120118120711.GB14863@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:07:11 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][GIT PULL][v3.3] tracing: Add header wrappers
event_headers_start.h and event_headers_end.h
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 10:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >
>
> > Hm, i don't really like the extra complexity - this code
> > *really* does not need any more complexity ...
>
> I agree.
>
> >
> > How about the low-tech solution of adding some text between
> > '/* */' markers to warns that these headers should not be
> > included in ordinary headers?
>
> The problem is that they currently are. For example:
>
> include/linux/interrupt.h
>
> has one to add a tracepoint in __raise_softirq_irqoff()
>
> Which is fine, as long as no other tracepoint header includes
> linux/interrupt.h.
Could we try to remove this one from the header?
I'd argue that __raise_softirq_irqoff() should not be inline -
that would solve a whole host of issues. Event tracing is
enabled in most distros so there's no real overhead argument to
be made here either - so it's probably a bit faster in fact to
have this uninlined. What do you think?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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