[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140506170640.088df53b@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 17:06:40 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA][PATCH] tracing: Add trace_<tracepoint>_enabled() function
On Tue, 6 May 2014 20:53:41 +0000 (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> > I do plan on adding more documentation to this to stress that this
> > should be done like this. But hey, we're kernel developers, we should
> > be responsible enough to not require the hand holding.
>
> I like your optimism. ;-)
I'm always the optimist :-)
> > The first time I thought about using this was with David's code, which
> > does this:
> >
> > if (static_key_false(&i2c_trace_msg)) {
> > int i;
> > for (i = 0; i < ret; i++)
> > if (msgs[i].flags & I2C_M_RD)
> > trace_i2c_reply(adap, &msgs[i], i);
> > trace_i2c_result(adap, i, ret);
> > }
> >
> > That would look rather silly in a tracepoint.
>
> Which goes with a mandatory silly question: how do you intend mapping
> the single key to two different tracepoints ?
Could always do:
if (trace_i2c_result_enabled() || trace_i2c_reply_enabled()) {
I wounder what the assembly of that would look like.
Still, having "side-effects" in the tracepoint parameters just seems
odd to me.
- 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