Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:11:40 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/11] [GIT PULL] more updates for the tag format | From | Frédéric Weisbecker <> |
| |
2009/6/10 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>: > > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > >> >> Ingo, >> >> Please pull the latest tip/tracing/event-print-format tree, which can be found at: >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rostedt/linux-2.6-trace.git >> tip/tracing/event-print-format >> >> >> Li Zefan (1): >> tracing/events: convert block trace points to TRACE_EVENT(), fix >> >> Steven Rostedt (10): >> tracing: add nsec2sec print formats >> tracing: convert lockdep lock_acquired trace point to use nsec2usec tag >> tracing: add major and minor tags for print format >> tracing: use << to print < instead of \< >> tracing: convert the block trace points to use the new tag format >> tracing: add test for strings in event tag format >> tracing: add func and symfunc to tag format >> tracing: check full name for field >> tracing: update sample code with new tag format >> tracing: move '>' to out of macros and into print statement >> >> ---- >> include/linux/blktrace_api.h | 4 +- >> include/linux/ftrace_event.h | 3 +- >> include/trace/events/block.h | 101 +++------ >> include/trace/events/irq.h | 8 +- >> include/trace/events/kmem.h | 12 +- >> include/trace/events/lockdep.h | 8 +- >> include/trace/ftrace.h | 2 +- >> kernel/trace/trace_output.c | 2 +- >> kernel/trace/trace_output.h | 4 + >> kernel/trace/trace_read_binary.c | 304 +++++++++++++++++++++++----- >> samples/trace_events/trace-events-sample.c | 21 ++- >> samples/trace_events/trace-events-sample.h | 66 ++++++ >> 12 files changed, 399 insertions(+), 136 deletions(-) > > Hm, that's way too much back and forth really - trivial typo fixes, > build failure, etc. This is really a 'oh, the merge window is > coming' last minute scrambling and we dont want to mess up the > squeaky-clean tracing tree history be messed up with this. > > Frederic also expressed worries about the tag format. Could we have > a wider buy-in for this format?
Well, indeed I had worries, but I discussed about it with Steven and now I actually think this new tag format is much more powerful than printf style. It brings a cleaner, and much higher level way to control the data exports.
But it would be nice to read some opinions from end users (end developers) of TRACE_EVENT().
> > I've separated these bits into tip:tracing/ftrace, and kept > tip:tracing/core on a pre-print-formats state (going back 8 > commits), so that upstream merging of the other bits does not get > held up. > > Could we try a cleaner, bisectable, consiously built up version of > these final tracing/core..tracing/ftrace please? I think we can - > the rest of the tree is clean. Please do a exact-same-content rebase > so that the merge back gets obvious and that the testing we've > injected does not get invalidated? > > 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/
| |