[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200924163331.0080b943@oasis.local.home>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:33:31 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracepoints: Add helper to test if tracepoint is
enabled in a header
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:27:34 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> I'd be a bit more specific: so far, the msr.h use-case requires to include
> directly tracepoint-defs.h and use a tracepoint_enabled() macro defined there.
>
> Other less "core" header use-cases could still include tracepoint.h, as long as
> there is no circular dependency.
Well, I'll keep tracepoint-defs.h for the msr.h case, and I could see
if tracepoint.h is good enough for the other cases.
But does it really matter, if we only need what is in
tracepoint-defs.h? Why add something that may cause issues in the
future?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists