linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] kernel.h: drop 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: <e171f94d-060b-448c-aab5-bafc01fea7fe@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 14:33:35 -0500
From: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
To: "Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" <chleroy@...nel.org>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
 Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
 David Laight <david.laight@...box.com>, Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>,
 Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Vivi Rodrigo <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
 Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...nel.org>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
 "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
 "linux-modules@...r.kernel.org" <linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] kernel.h: drop trace_printk.h

On 1/5/2026 1:21 PM, Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 05/01/2026 à 18:11, Joel Fernandes a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 1/5/2026 11:39 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 02:20:55 +0200
>>> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not think it is necessary to move it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not talking about move, I'm talking about the C 101 thingy. Any custom API
>>>> should be included before use, otherwise compiler won't see it. Which header do
>>>> you want to include to have this API being provided? Note, it's really bad
>>>> situation right now with the header to be included implicitly via non-obvious
>>>> or obscure path. The discussion moved as far as I see it towards the finding a
>>>> good place for the trace_printk.h.
>>>
>>> It's not a normal API. It's for debugging the kernel. Thus it should be
>>> available everywhere without having to add a header. Hence, the best place
>>> to include trace_printk.h, is in kernel.h.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking that my proposed config option is the best solution now. For
>>> those that do not care about debugging the kernel, you enable the
>>> "HIDE_TRACE_PRINTK" config so that your builds will be "quicker". But for
>>> everyone else, it will not slow down their workflow when they need to debug
>>> code.
>>
>> 100% agree. We do have people running custom configs for faster builds, so this
>> hide thing could be enabled there assuming those don't care about debug.
>>
>> In other words, "If it aint broke, don't fix it".
> 
> But if I understand correctly, it would save 2% build time. That means 12
> secondes on a 10 minutes build. Is it really worth it ?
> 
99% of my kernel builds are usually 90 seconds. I throw a lot of cores at it and
with ccache. I care more about trace_printk not being available than saving 2%.
But YMMV. I am sure there are people who care a lot about build time, but for me
it has not (yet) been a problem.

 - Joel