From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756752Ab0EGPp3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2010 11:45:29 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:32883 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756615Ab0EGPp1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2010 11:45:27 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=OMZqYO3L41gFG4eI735GctFZkIqa2t9YKv4cWfI71LE= c=1 sm=0 a=HwkIGVdAOiAA:10 a=7U3hwN5JcxgA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=gMqfjgEr1zLu/65IO0LwxA==:17 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=Zyr8gCsZwAgOsP4ySF8A:9 a=kXoUuSEFSqquPs4s0g4A:7 a=Cm9cEmCmeThctTMx5hYhDo8xqxgA:4 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=jeBq3FmKZ4MA:10 a=gMqfjgEr1zLu/65IO0LwxA==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.67.89.75 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9 - v2][RFC] tracing: Let tracepoints have data?passed to tracepoint callbacks From: Steven Rostedt Reply-To: rostedt@goodmis.org To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Lai Jiangshan , Li Zefan , Masami Hiramatsu , Christoph Hellwig In-Reply-To: <20100507153035.GA15267@Krystal> References: <7a22ce9b-4c74-4818-9521-7fbccd1b8b1d@email.android.com> <20100507143901.GA18408@Krystal> <1273244123.22438.140.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20100507150838.GB30356@Krystal> <1273245338.22438.168.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20100507153035.GA15267@Krystal> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Organization: Kihon Technologies Inc. Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 11:45:25 -0400 Message-ID: <1273247125.22438.202.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 11:30 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote: > > I'm fine with forcing all callbacks to include a data parameter if you > > are. This would also make the changes simpler. > > Yes, I am all for it. Great! I'm making the changes now. > > As for the extra type checking, it is basically just trying to force you to > generate matching caller-callee prototypes in your CPP macros. The goal is > really to check that the data parameter type match in both the caller and > callee. I see that as a mean to make sure nobody is going to try to take > shortcuts by playing with the callback types in the "undefined behavior" zone of > the C standard in future TRACE_EVENT() modifications. OK, I'll wait for your patch. As my favorite saying goes... "When people ask me what language my mother tongue is, I simply reply 'C'." -- Steve