lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/8] tracing/events: move the ftrace event tracing code to core
    From
    I think merging these structures together can also allow you to move
    certain parts of code to the general functions in kernel/trace/trace_events.c
    so you don't need to define those functions for individual events.

    Jiaying

    On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 13:23 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
    >> > + * static struct trace_event ftrace_event_type_<call> = {
    >> > + * .trace = ftrace_raw_output_<call>, <-- stage 2
    >> > + * };
    >>
    >> > + * static struct ftrace_event_call __used
    >> > + * __attribute__((__aligned__(4)))
    >> > + * __attribute__((section("_ftrace_events"))) event_<call> = {
    >> > + * .name = "<call>",
    >> > + * .system = "<system>",
    >> > + * .raw_init = ftrace_raw_init_event_<call>,
    >> > + * .regfunc = ftrace_reg_event_<call>,
    >> > + * .unregfunc = ftrace_unreg_event_<call>,
    >> > + * .show_format = ftrace_format_<call>,
    >> > + * }
    >>
    >> Is there a good reason these are two different structs?
    >>
    >> I've always wondered about that, it seems natural to unify them and to
    >> generalize the reverse lookup hash that is now private to trace_output.
    >>
    >> The trace_event_profile code could use that reverse lookup, that linear
    >> search it currently does it really lame.
    >
    > Hmm, I'll have to look at that. Of course that means touching these crazy
    > macros again ;-)
    >
    > -- Steve
    >
    >


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-15 05:43    [W:0.037 / U:0.056 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site