Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Jan 2011 08:56:09 -0500 | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: [RFC patch 3/5] ftrace trace event add missing semicolumn |
| |
* Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu) wrote: > On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 04:10:18 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker said: > > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:01:33PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > > Can DEFINE_EVENT ever be sensibly used in a context where the additional ; will > > > cause an issue (for instance, a hypothetical array initialization like: > > > > > > static struct events[] = {DEFINE_EVENT(..), DEFINE_EVENT(...) } > > > You can't do the above as DEFINE_EVENT() do more than just creating a structure. > > It can define functions and so. > > > > Plus it doesn't behave the same whether CREATE_TRACE_POINTS is defined or not: > > it can either define or declare the functions and structures. > > > > > or other places we usually do the 'do { X } while (0)' trick to make the code legal? > > > > I just can't figure out a sane case. > > OK.. I was wondering if there was a corner case where we had to resolve the > one versus two semicolon issue in a specific way to guarantee syntactic > correctness, but it looks like this one gets to fight it out on taste/style > grounds...
As I pointed out in my reply to Frederic, the creation of an array of events is the exact use-case I have in mind. It allows us to shrink the code, remove dynamic initialization code and to shrink read-write data size significantly over the current Ftrace trace event scheme.
Thanks,
Mathieu
-- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |