* Martin J. Bligh <[email protected]> wrote:
> >i.e. we should have macros to prepare local information, with macro
> >arities of 2, 3, 4 and 5:
> >
> > _(name, data1);
> > __(name, data1, data2);
> > ___(name, data1, data2, data3);
> > ____(name, data1, data2, data3, data4);
>
> Personally I think that's way more visually offensive that something
> that looks like a function call, but still ;-) We do it as a caps
> macro
>
> KTRACE(foo, bar)
>
> internally, which I suppose makes it not look like a function call.
> But at the end of the day, it's all just a matter of visual taste,
> what's actually in there is way more important.
i disagree with the naming, for the reasons stated before: if we add any
static info to the kernel, it's a "easier data extraction" thing (for
the purposes of speeding up dynamic tracing), not a tracepoint. That way
there's no dispute whether what i remove is a tracepoint (on which
static tracers might rely in a hard way), or just a speedup for
SystemTap. So a better name would be what SystemTap has implemented
today:
STAP_MARK_NN(kernel_context_switch, prev, next);
or what makes this even more explicit:
DEBUG_DATA(kernel_context_switch, prev, next);
(but i'm flexible about the naming - as long as it doesnt say 'trace'
and as long as there are no guarantees at all that those points remain,
when a better method of accessing the same data for dynamic tracers is
implemented.)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
