linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] mce: acpi/apei: trace: Include PCIe AER trace event conditionally

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:23:29 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	tony.luck@...el.com, bp@...en8.de, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	rjw@...k.pl, lance.ortiz@...com, m.chehab@...sung.com,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mce: acpi/apei: trace: Include PCIe AER trace event
 conditionally

[ attempting to try out claws-mail, hopefully this messages isn't
scrambled ;-) ]

On Thu,  8 Aug 2013 23:57:49 +0530
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Since we'll be adding multiple trace events to ras.h, we need to protect
> each block appropriately so that they only get included in the right
> places. Update PCIe AER trace event for this purpose.

Why not make a separate file for each? You will have to define
TRACE_EVENT_PCIE_AER for the users as well. That is, the places that
include ras.h and use the trace_aer_*() tracepoints.


> 
> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c | 1 +
>  include/trace/events/ras.h             | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c
> index 2c7c9f5..4d06859 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>  #include "aerdrv.h"
>  
>  #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> +#define TRACE_EVENT_PCIE_AER
>  #include <trace/events/ras.h>
>  
>  #define AER_AGENT_RECEIVER		0
> diff --git a/include/trace/events/ras.h b/include/trace/events/ras.h
> index 88b8783..4a66142 100644
> --- a/include/trace/events/ras.h
> +++ b/include/trace/events/ras.h
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>  #undef TRACE_SYSTEM
>  #define TRACE_SYSTEM ras
>  
> -#if !defined(_TRACE_AER_H) || defined(TRACE_HEADER_MULTI_READ)
> +#if (!defined(_TRACE_AER_H) || defined(TRACE_HEADER_MULTI_READ)) && defined()

I think it would look cleaner to encapsulate the one define with the
other:

#ifdef TRACE_EVENT_PCIE_AER
#if !defined(_TRACE_AER_H) || defined(TRACE_HEADER_MULTI_READ)


-- Steve

>  #define _TRACE_AER_H
>  
>  #include <linux/tracepoint.h>

--
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/