[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <899e4e41c4cf5c62a4fbce0923e5796141ef46f0.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:09:10 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] trace: Move trace data to new section
_ftrace_data
On Tue, 2020-02-18 at 21:53 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 18:03:16 -0800
> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> > Move the trace data to a separate section to make it easier to
> > examine the amount of actual data in an object file.
>
> Not that I'm against this patch set, but can you elaborate more on
> "make it easier to examine the amount of actual data in an object file".
size -A <object> would now show each section of an
object file separating normal data from trace data.
It makes it easier to identify data that could be const like
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/60559197a1af9e0af7f329cc3427989e5756846f.camel@perches.com/
> Also, don't use "_ftrace" as the section name. "ftrace" should be
> reserved for the function hook part of tracing, which trace events do
> not apply to. "_trace_event_data" would be more appropriate.
I don't care about the section name at all.
I used that name for consistency with _ftrace_event
in the same file.
Perhaps the _ftrace_event section
name could be renamed to something
intelligible too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists