Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:38:56 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 |
| |
* Martin J. Bligh <mbligh@mbligh.org> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |