[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200925122647.230decde@oasis.local.home>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:26:47 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>,
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 Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:30:06 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, I don't see any issues with the current patch set as is
> > (besides the documentation fix, which I already updated locally). And
> > will add this to my queue for linux-next.
>
> The only thing I would change in the documentation is to word this as
> "here is a trampoline trick which can be used to work-around rare cases
> of tracepoint header circular dependency issues" rather than "always use
> this when instrumenting a header".
>
I rather not have tracepoints in headers. Period!
It's not just about circular dependencies, it also bloats the code.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists