[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140311104602.151bfdb3@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:46:02 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [for-next][PATCH 08/20] tracing: Warn if a tracepoint is not
set via debugfs
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 04:08:27 +0000 (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> > That's my argument.
>
> So basically, all we'd have to do in LTTng is to add a hash table tracking the
> tracepoint probes which are registered, but for which there are no
> tracepoint call sites. Whenever registration of a probe would fail due to
> -ENODEV (assuming we unregister the probe within tracepoint.c when we return
> -ENODEV, as you initially proposed), we would put this probe in the hash table.
> Upon module coming, we would iterate on the module's tracepoints and check
> if any of those match the content of the hash table, and then register the
> probe.
>
> I guess I'd prefer that to the weird successful failure return value in
> tracepoint.c.
>
OK, then I'll add back in the removal of the tracepoint on this error.
Then your LTTng module can handle the tracepoints that don't exist yet.
-- 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