Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Dec 2008 00:04:42 +0100 | From | "Frédéric Weisbecker" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] tracing/ftrace: don't insert TRACE_PRINT during selftests |
| |
2008/12/5 Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>: > 2008/12/4 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>: >> The comment style should be: >> >> /* >> * comment >> * comment >> * comment >> */ > > Sorry, will fix it. > >> >>> +static atomic_t tracing_selftest_running = ATOMIC_INIT(0); >> >> Do we need that is atomic? Also, it needs to be __read_mostly. > > > I thought it should be atomic to be sure the value is synchronized > on smp when read. But actually that should have been more likely an > int with smp_wb after writing it. > >>> + >>> /* For tracers that don't implement custom flags */ >>> static struct tracer_opt dummy_tracer_opt[] = { >>> { } >>> @@ -589,6 +597,8 @@ int register_tracer(struct tracer *type) >>> struct tracer *saved_tracer = current_trace; >>> struct trace_array *tr = &global_trace; >>> int i; >>> + >>> + atomic_set(&tracing_selftest_running, 1); >> >> Enable this in the mutex lock, and we could make it a normal int. >> > > > But ftrace_printk can be called from interrupt context. I think we can loose > some TRACE_PRINT entries at the selftests time since the tracer are not enabled > by the user at this time, except the boot tracer... >
But with the boot tracer enabled, there is no selftest actually :-) -- 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/
| |