From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756323AbZDPNnO (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:43:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755212AbZDPNmw (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:42:52 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.124]:39177 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754540AbZDPNmv (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:42:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:42:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven Rostedt X-X-Sender: rostedt@gandalf.stny.rr.com To: Christoph Hellwig cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Mathieu Desnoyers , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Problem with CREATE_TRACE_POINTS and recursion safety In-Reply-To: <20090416110920.GB10487@infradead.org> Message-ID: References: <49E67D1D.8020704@goop.org> <49E6847B.9000003@goop.org> <20090416022305.GA22378@Krystal> <49E69CED.9050706@goop.org> <20090416110920.GB10487@infradead.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:09:14PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > I hate to do this because it adds some more work to the developer adding a > > new trace point header, but we could just remove the CREATE_TRACE_POINTS > > and do in the trace/events/*.h headers: > > > > #ifdef CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS > > #include > > #endif > > > > in all tracepoint headers. I originally had it this way with just the > > CREATE_TRACE_POINTS, but Christoph Hellwig and Mathieu both suggested > > putting that into define_trace.h. It seems so much cleaner to keep it in > > define_trace.h, but if it is causing too many headaches, it may not be > > worth it :-/ > > I still don't like the magic include in every trace header. > > What about > > #define CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS "subsystem" > > to only create them for a given subsystem? I tried this. But it seems that there's no way to compare strings with the preprocessor. You can compare numbers, but having each subsystem define its own number would be a pain to manage. -- Steve