From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756941Ab0EaTQf (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 May 2010 15:16:35 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.123]:59538 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753379Ab0EaTQe (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 May 2010 15:16:34 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=WC2cwRI/KXdLNEmE8ivg2cmI8vFt6dWmaZdvaJ93QHU= c=1 sm=0 a=bhrI7EF9pE8A:10 a=yQWWgrYGNuUA:10 a=7U3hwN5JcxgA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=gMqfjgEr1zLu/65IO0LwxA==:17 a=0sKjk8XQrMeuGpXQdC4A:9 a=qwGT80QRSpGmD67hzMjcF-YCnI4A:4 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=gMqfjgEr1zLu/65IO0LwxA==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.67.89.75 Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Add task activate/deactivate tracepoints From: Steven Rostedt Reply-To: rostedt@goodmis.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Ingo Molnar , LKML In-Reply-To: <1275330522.1645.523.camel@laptop> References: <1275056762-13130-1-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1275059710.27810.9624.camel@twins> <20100531080049.GA435@elte.hu> <1275293544.27810.21478.camel@twins> <1275296099.27810.21622.camel@twins> <20100531143622.GA5157@nowhere> <1275317013.27810.23019.camel@twins> <20100531144820.GB5157@nowhere> <1275322715.27810.23323.camel@twins> <1275323853.15884.14.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1275330522.1645.523.camel@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Organization: Kihon Technologies Inc. Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 15:16:32 -0400 Message-ID: <1275333392.15884.16.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 Mon, 2010-05-31 at 20:28 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 12:37 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I'm a little nervous to extend the > > CREATE_TRACE_POINTS macro to be used within the header to create utility > > functions, although, currently I don't think there's anything > > technically wrong in doing so. > > Right, I can attest to the compile mess that results in not having > it :-) Given that, I think we're fairly safe with stretching it like > this, the compiler will yell real loud if you mess this up. So I'm not > sure you need to be very paranoid about this. Actually, I'm not worried about getting the utility functions right. I'm actually more worried about extending TRACE_EVENT() and having this be a thorn in our side when doing so. -- Steve