linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] tracing: Add trace

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]

Message-ID: <CAHv-k_-E8DBC9YCnaNSJbxE22nra-1QLSNC5i5K0oQDTtdZ1Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2016 17:19:41 +0530
From:   Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>
To:     Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
Cc:     "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masami <masami.hiramatsu@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] tracing: Add trace_irqsoff tracepoints

Hi Daniel,

On 30 August 2016 at 17:00, Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de> wrote:
> Hi Binoy,
>
>
> As Masami has pointed out, the prefix trace_ should not be used. Also having
> trace_latency_ and latency_trace_ is kind of confusing. What about
> {start|stop}_latency_timing()? It would match the existing
> {start|stop}_critical_timing(). Or is it too close and it leads to
> confusion?
>
> Another idea is {start|stop}_latency_preempt(). This matches the
> trace_latency_preempt_enable() function.
>

Sure, I'll make this change. And how about the 'cpu' field not being
available to be used
as a key field or as a value field when we do not define it explicitly
(mentioned in the
other email). Can we live with that ?

Thanks,
Binoy