Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:13:20 -0400 | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17 |
| |
Hi Randy,
Thanks for the comments, see below :
* Randy.Dunlap (rdunlap@xenotime.net) wrote: > > +static inline void __mark_check_format(const char *fmt, ...) > > + __attribute__ ((format (printf, 1, 2))); > > +void __mark_check_format(const char *fmt, ...) { } > > That last line is confusing (to me). What's it for? > Is it just an empty (inline) function definition? > If so, why repeat the void + function name? >
The goal of this "empty" function is just to have to compiler check the string format consistency.
I separated the function declaration and implementation because I have seen some compilers complain about having the two merged together.
I will change it to
static inline __attribute__ ((format (printf, 1, 2))) void __mark_check_format(const char *fmt, ...) { }
And hope every compiler will like it.
The empty implementation is because the function is called (must therefore be implemented), but I expect the compiler to completely optimize it away.
> > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/kernel/Kconfig.marker > > @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@ > > +# Code markers configuration > > + > > +menu "Marker configuration" > > + > > + > > +config MARK > > + bool "Enable MARK code markers" > > + default y > Please justify using 'y' as the default value. >
It has to be debated. The default for markers will put a symbol for all the markers, so that kprobe can easily attach to it. It has no impact that I am aware of except to boost the number of symbols.
Mathieu
OpenPGP public key: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg Key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 - 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/
| |