[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241008191957.6cb66fa2@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 19:19:57 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Ingo
Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Mark
Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Alexander Shishkin
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, Joel
Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] tracing/ftrace: guard syscall probe with
preempt_notrace
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 10:58:12 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> + PARAMS(assign), PARAMS(print)) \
> +static notrace void \
> +trace_event_raw_event_##call(void *__data, proto) \
> +{ \
> + guard(preempt_notrace)(); \
> + do_trace_event_raw_event_##call(__data, args); \
> +}
> +
Do we really need to use "guard()" for a single line function? Why make the
compiler do more work?
static notrace void \
trace_event_raw_event_##call(void *__data, proto) \
{ \
preempt_disable_notrace(); \
do_trace_event_raw_event_##call(__data, args); \
preempt_enable_notrace(); \
}
Is more readable.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists